Phase III Report - Missouri Department of Natural Resources · Phase III Report Final Report May 2010 Missouri Department of Natural Resources – Water Resources Center Great Northwest

Phase III Report

Northwest Missouri Regional Water Supply Transmission System Study Final Report May 2010

Northwest Missouri Regional Water Supply Transmission System Study

Phase III Report

Final Report

May 2010

Missouri Department of Natural Resources – Water Resources Center Great Northwest Wholesale Water Commission

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District

Prepared by: CDM Federal Programs Corporation

9200 Ward Parkway, Suite 500 Kansas City, Missouri 64114

Bartlett & West, Inc. 250 NE Tudor Road

Lee's Summit, Missouri 64086-5696

Contents

Executive Summary

Section 1 Introduction 1.1 Study Authority ........................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Report Format ........................................................................................................... 1-1

Section 2 Great Northwest Wholesale Water Commission 2.1 Background ............................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Formation of Great Northwest Wholesale Water Commission ......................... 2-2 2.3 Summary of Past Work ............................................................................................ 2-4

2.3.1 Phase I Report ............................................................................................ 2-5 2.3.2 Phase II Feasibility Report – Northwest Missouri Regional Water

Supply Transmission System Study ....................................................... 2-6

Section 3 Cost of Water 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Cost of Producing Potable Water ........................................................................... 3-1 3.3 Potable Water Production Costs for Hypothetical Treatment Facility in

Northwest Missouri ................................................................................................. 3-2

Section 4 Current and Future Regulatory Issues 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Stage 1 and Stage 2 Disinfectants/Disinfection By-Product Rules ................... 4-1 4.3 Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule ..................................... 4-2 4.4 Groundwater Rule .................................................................................................... 4-2 4.5 Lead and Copper Rule Short-Term Revisions ...................................................... 4-3 4.6 Revised Total Coliform Rule ................................................................................... 4-3

Section 5 Drinking Water Sources 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Regional Water Availability .................................................................................... 5-1

5.2.1 Surface Water Availability ....................................................................... 5-1 5.2.2 Groundwater Sources Availability ......................................................... 5-4

5.3 Regional Water Reliability ....................................................................................... 5-9 5.3.1 Drought Susceptibility .............................................................................. 5-9 5.3.2 Surface Water Source Reliability ........................................................... 5-11 5.3.3 Groundwater Source Reliability ............................................................ 5-11

5.4 Regional Water Quality ......................................................................................... 5-15 5.4.1 Surface Water Sources Quality .............................................................. 5-15 5.4.2 Groundwater Sources Quality ............................................................... 5-17

5.5 Drinking Water Sources by County .................................................................... 5-21 5.5.1 Andrew County ....................................................................................... 5-25 5.5.2 Atchison County ...................................................................................... 5-25

6198.007_NW MO Water Study_Phase III Report_May 2010.doc i

Table of Contents

5.5.3 Buchanan County .................................................................................... 5-26 5.5.4 Caldwell County ...................................................................................... 5-27 5.5.5 Clinton County ........................................................................................ 5-28 5.5.6 Daviess County ........................................................................................ 5-29 5.5.7 DeKalb County ........................................................................................ 5-30 5.5.8 Gentry County ......................................................................................... 5-30 5.5.9 Harrison County ...................................................................................... 5-31 5.5.10 Holt County .............................................................................................. 5-32 5.5.11 Nodaway County .................................................................................... 5-33 5.5.12 Worth County .......................................................................................... 5-35

Section 6 Moving Forward-Issue Statements on Drinking Water Sources in Northwest Missouri

Section 7 References

Appendices Appendix A Public Drinking Water Wells Northwestern Missouri Appendix B Issue Statements

Tables

2-1 Great Northwest Wholesale Water Commission Member List .......................... 2-4 2-2 Conceptual Plan Preliminary Cost Estimate ......................................................... 2-7 2-3 Annual Wholesale Rate Requirements .................................................................. 2-8 3-1 Annual Cost of Finished Water for Example Facilities ....................................... 3-2 5-1 Hydrological Potential of Geologic Formations ................................................... 5-8 5-2 Municipal Surface Water Supply Reliability Issues ........................................... 5-12 5-3 Municipal Groundwater Supply Reliability Issues ........................................... 5-13 5-4 Municipal Surface Water Supply Quality Issues ............................................... 5-16 5-5 Municipal Groundwater Supply Quality Issues ................................................ 5-19 5-6 Water Availability and Status of Active Drinking Water Sources in Northwest

Missouri ................................................................................................................... 5-22

Figures

2-1 Study Area ................................................................................................................. 2-3 2-2 Phase I Regional Plan ............................................................................................... 2-5 2-3 Phase II Conceptual Plan ......................................................................................... 2-9 5-1 Active Drinking Water Sources .............................................................................. 5-3 5-2 Drought Susceptibility ........................................................................................... 5-10 5-3 Northwest Missouri Water Supply and Customer Flow Chart ....................... 5-20

6198.007_NW MO Water Study_Phase III Report_May 2010.doc ii

Table of Contents

Acronyms

ACWWC Atchison County Wholesale Water Commission AWWA American Water Works Association CDM CDM Federal Programs Corporation Council Northwest Missouri Regional Council of Governments D/DBP Disinfectants/Disinfection By-Products EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency gpm gallons per minute GNWWWC Great Northwest Wholesale Water Commission GWR groundwater rule LT2ESWTR Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule LRAA Locational Running Annual Average MCL maximum contaminant level MGD million gallons per day mg/L milligrams per liter MDNR Missouri Department of Natural Resources MTBE methyl tertiary butyl ether No. Number NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service O&M operation and maintenance OEL operational evaluation level PAS Planning Assistance to States PWS Public Water Supply PWSD Public Water Supply District RESOP Reservoir Operation Study Computer Program TDS total dissolved solids WR Water Resources Water Partnership Water Partnership for Northwest Missouri

6198.007_NW MO Water Study_Phase III Report_May 2010.doc iii

Table of Contents

6198.007_NW MO Water Study_Phase III Report_May 2010.doc iv

Definitions

Acidification. Routine well maintenance to remove chemical and bacteria buildup. This buildup reduces open areas of well screen and decreases pumping capacity. During the procedure, acidic solution is pumped into the well and allowed to contact the screen. The well is then developed to remove low pH water and the debris generated by the acidification.

Aquifer. A consolidated or unconsolidated subsurface water-bearing geologic formation, group of formations, or part of a formation, or other geologic deposits, capable of yielding a usable or potentially usable amount of water.

Drought of Record. The most extensive period of drought that occurred from January 1951 to December 1959. Used as a benchmark to determine the capability of surface water sources to meet current demands in the Reservoir Operation Study Computer Program.

Finished Water. Water that has completed all processes of a treatment facility and is ready to be delivered to consumers.

Firm Capacity. The optimum yield determined in recent Reservoir Operation Study Computer Program studies as the optimum yield required to meet current demands during the drought of record.

Groundwater. Water occurring beneath the surface of the ground, including underground watercourses, artesian basins, underground reservoirs and lakes, aquifers, and water in the saturated zone.

Locational Running Annual Average (LRAA). Under B/DBO Rule, the average of sample analytical results for samples taken at a particular monitoring location during the previous four calendar quarters.

Microbial Toolbox. Serves as a decision tree tool that will guide you through several steps to attain Cryptosporidium credits associated with the Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR).

Non-transient Water Systems. Systems that provide water to people in locations such as schools, office buildings, and restaurants.

Operational Evaluation Level (OEL). The operational evaluation level is a locational running annual average threshold value for drinking water pollutants. The process is meant to help systems identify if they are in danger of exceeding the MCL. An OEL exceedance requires an operational evaluation meeting specific criteria and reporting of the evaluation to the State, but does not require systems to take corrective actions.

Reliability. The probability that a reservoir will deliver the calculated demand consistently.

Reservoir Operation Study Computer Program (RESOP). A model created by the Natural Resource Conservation Service that can assess water storage based on monthly climatic and demand data.

Revenue Requirements. The total amount of annual expenditures needed to provide finished water.

Executive Summary

This report provides a summary of water supply issues in the northwest region of Missouri. The purpose of this report is to provide decision-making tools to assist local governments in Andrew, Atchison, Buchanan, Caldwell, Clinton, Daviess, DeKalb, Gentry, Harrison, Holt, Nodaway, and Worth Counties in assessing the benefit of joining the Great Northwest Missouri Water Commission (GNWWWC).

The report includes four main topics that describe the formation of the GNWWWC and the challenges associated with both groundwater and surface water supplies.

Formation of the GNWWWC. Provides a discussion of the events that led to the formation of the GNWWWC and a summary of past studies conducted for the GNWWWC.

Cost of Water. Provides methodology for water supply facilities to compare costs for purchasing water from the GNWWWC or continuing to independently treat/supply water. Calculations are based on methods from the Principles of Water Rates, Fees and Charges-American Water Works Association (AWWA) Manual M1.

Current and Future Regulatory Issues. Prepared by Missouri Department of National Resources staff to provide a brief description of regulatory issues that impact groundwater and surface water suppliers.

Drinking Water Sources. Provides a description on the availability, reliability, and quality of current groundwater and surface water supplies and a general outlook for future supply growth for each of the 12 counties within the GNWWWC region. The section presents both a general region-wide summary and county-specific description of water supplies.

To assess the benefit of purchasing water from a regional wholesale supplier, communities should evaluate the issues presented in this report. Each county is provided an issue statement, included in the appendix of this report, outlining the local availability, reliability, and quality of water supplies. The issue statements are part of the outreach program designed to assist local governments in assessing the benefit of joining the GNWWWC.

6198.007_NW MO Water Study_Phase III Report_May 2010.doc ES-1

Executive Summary

This Page Left Blank Intentionally

6198.007_NW MO Water Study_Phase III Report_May 2010.doc ES-2

Section 1 Introduction This report summarizes the overall water supply issues for northwest Missouri by describing the challenges associated with both groundwater and surface water supplies in the area. It has been prepared to assist local governments in Andrew, Atchison, Buchanan, Caldwell, Clinton, Daviess, DeKalb, Gentry, Harrison, Holt, Nodaway, and Worth Counties in assessing the benefit of joining the Great Northwest Wholesale Water Commission (GNWWWC).

This study was completed by CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM) and Bartlett & West, with support from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). The report was prepared using data from previous studies and information provided by MDNR, GNWWWC, and readily available online sources.

1.1 Study Authority Funding for this study was provided through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Planning Assistance to States (PAS) Program, Section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-251) as amended to assist the States in the preparation of comprehensive plans for the development, utilization and conservation of water and related land resources, and Section 319 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-640). The MDNR, as the non-Federal sponsor of the PAS agreement, utilized State general revenue funds for 50 percent of this study's cost.

1.2 Report Format Section 1 - Introduction.

Section 2 - Great Northwest Wholesale Water Commission. Provides background information about the GNWWWC and a summary on previous studies.

Section 3 - Cost of Water. Provides guidance for estimating the costs associated with treating and supplying finished drinking water.

Section 4 - Current and Future Regulatory Issues. Offers a summary of regulatory issues that impact surface water and groundwater supplies.

Section 5 - Drinking Water Sources. Provides a regional and county-specific summary on the availability, reliability, and quality of drinking water sources.

Section 6 – Issue Statements. Issue statements have been prepared for each county using the information developed in Sections 2 through 5. The issue statements will be used as part of an outreach program to local governments to assist them in assessing the benefit of joining the GNWWWC.

Section 7 – References.

6198.007_NW MO Water Study_Phase III Report_May 2010.doc 1-1

Section 1 Introduction



Section 2 Great Northwest Wholesale Water Commission 2.1 Background The northwest region of Missouri faces both economic and environmental challenges in maintaining drinking water resources. These challenges are not independent of each other and require a region-wide effort for resolution. Utilizing the best quality, most reliable and readily available water sources on a regional scale could provide an economical long-term water supply for both residents and businesses in northwest Missouri.

Drinking water in the region has traditionally been obtained from a combination of groundwater wells and surface water sources. Missouri River alluvium deposits and man-made reservoirs such as Smithville Lake, Cameron, and Grindstone are the largest drinking water sources in northwest Missouri. However, there are challenges in obtaining reliable water sources when access to the Missouri River alluvium or major reservoirs is not an option.

The Missouri River alluvium covers approximately seven percent of the total land area in northwest Missouri region. Sources derived from other formations often do not sustain a long-term supply. Approximately 25 percent of drinking water systems in northwest Missouri with their own water supply have lifetime expectancy greater than 15 years (GNWWWC, 2009a). Some of the surface water and groundwater sources have also been compromised by the presence of pollutants and require additional treatment.

The tax base in the study area continues to decrease with decreasing population. This occurs at a time when improvements in water treatment infrastructure are needed to sustain the current conditions and encourage growth in the region. Not only has this infrastructure aged, requiring increased maintenance and replacement, but increasingly strict water standards require more complex treatment prior to consumption (CDM/Bartlett and West, 2009). Many drinking water facilities have surpassed their useful life and should be replaced or abandoned (GNWWWC, 2009a).

Each supplier in the region independently sources and treats their water. Due to the maintenance and construction need of the aging water infrastructure, water quality parameters, and demand, water rates in the region vary greatly. By pooling economic resources and water supply sources, the northwest Missouri region could substantially improve the availability, reliability, and quality of drinking water supplied to its customers.


Section 2 Great Northwest Wholesale Water Commission

2.2 Formation of Great Northwest Wholesale Water Commission The idea for GNWWWC followed a dry 14-month period from 2003 to 2004. A group of city and county elected officials approached the Northwest Missouri Regional Council of Governments (Council) about the possibility of a regional solution to the drinking water challenges faced by many water providers in the region. In March 2005, the Council approached MDNR to develop a comprehensive water system plan for the region. The Council was promised support for a regional effort in formulation of a long-term water supply plan that would be locally driven.

An exploratory group of water experts, local elected officials, state and federal agencies, and concerned citizens was formed to begin to examine the issues of water availability and reliability in northwest Missouri. Soon the group was expanded to include representatives from a 12-county region, and became known as the Water Partnership for Northwest Missouri (Water Partnership). The 12-county regional group included representatives from water suppliers in the counties of Andrew, Atchison, Buchanan, Caldwell, Clinton, Daviess, DeKalb, Gentry, Harrison, Holt, Nodaway, and Worth, as shown in Figure 2-1 (MDNR, 2007).

Based on two initial studies, the Water Partnership determined the need to form a public water entity to implement the projects required to provide a reliable water supply in northwest Missouri. In late 2008, the Water Partnership voted to form the new legal entity called the GNWWWC. The GNWWWC was formed under Chapter 393 of the Missouri Revised State Statues. It was voted into effect by members of the Water Partnership, and is thus is a public water utility. The GNWWWC has the authority to construct and own infrastructure, issue debt on behalf of its members, receive grant proceeds and other public assistance, and purchase and sell water from retail water systems (GNWWWC, 2009b). The GNWWWC met for the first time on July 16, 2009 in the City of Savannah, Missouri with eight water providers. As of February 2010, 22 cities and water districts have joined the GNWWWC. The member cities and member city representatives as of February 2010 are presented in Table 2-1.

The GNWWWC has since assumed the responsibilities of regional planning for future water needs in the 12-county study area.





Table 2-1 Great Northwest Wholesale Water Commission Member List

February 2010 Member Name City County Representative

Andrew PWSD #1 Savannah Andrew County Connie Field

Andrew PWSD #2 Cosby Andrew County Terry Campbell

Andrew PWSD #4 Andrew County Ross Bilby

City of Bolckow Bolckow Andrew County

City of Savannah Savannah Andrew County Michael Fisher

Buchanan PWSD #1 Rushville Buchanan County Norm Ellis

City of Plattsburg Plattsburg Clinton County D. J. Gehrt

Clinton PWSD #1 Trimble Clinton County

City of Cameron Cameron Clinton, DeKalb Counties Everett Ice

City of Gallatin Gallatin Daviess County Zac Johnson

Daviess PWSD #1 Pattonsburg Daviess County

City of Maysville Maysville DeKalb County Patricia Fisher Johnson

City of Stewartsville Stewartsville DeKalb County Sam Clary

DeKalb PWSD #1 Clarksdale DeKalb County Michael Jacobs

City of Albany Albany Gentry County Derek Brown

City of Stanberry Stanberry Gentry County Terry Reynolds

Gentry PWSD #1 Albany Gentry County Kathy Morgan

City of Maitland Maitland Holt County

City of Barnard Barnard Nodaway County

City of Ravenwood Ravenwood Nodaway County James Teaney

Nodaway PWSD #1 Maryville Nodaway County Don Nothstine

City of Grant City Grant City Worth County Greg Miller

PWSD – Public Water Supply District

2.3 Summary of Past Work The Water Partnership desired to produce a plan that would address the growing need for a long-term, affordable, high-quality water supply, while leveraging existing infrastructure and maintaining local control over the distribution systems. Toward this goal, an initial Phase I report (MDNR, 2007) was prepared that identified the existing facilities, considered multiple resource alternatives, and defined the need. A second study, the Phase II feasibility study (CDM/Bartlett and West, 2009) provided a conceptual plan from which potential capital, operations and maintenance, and replacement cost estimates could be estimated.



2.3.1 Phase I Report The Phase I report focused on the formation and purpose of the Water Partnership and provided a general summary of the area’s available water supply. The report was written by MDNR and the production and printing costs were financed by MDNR and Northwest Missouri State University. The study reinforced the importance of reliable water sources for community development and growth. The Water Partnership evaluated options for a regional water plan that could transfer water to various existing local water facilities without creating new service lines to customers.

The Water Partnership’s engineering subcommittee identified seven water systems with the potential to continue serving their current customers and also be expanded to serve new customers. These seven hubs included: Cameron, Bethany, Maryville, Missouri-American Water Company, Middle Fork Water Company, Plattsburg, and Savannah. Using these seven water systems as a base, the Water Partnership developed several proposed plans for regional water supply and transmission. The Water Partnership identified Sketch Number (No.) 7, shown in Figure 2-2, as the recommended regional plan (MDNR, 2007).

Figure 2-2 Phase I Regional Plan



2.3.2 Phase II Feasibility Report - Northwest Missouri Regional Water Supply Transmission System Study The Phase II feasibility report (CDM/Bartlett and West, 2009), titled the Northwest Missouri Regional Water Supply System Study, and was written as a follow up to the Phase I report. Funding for the Phase II report was provided by MDNR, the Water Partnership, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers through the PAS Program. The MDNR as the non-federal sponsor utilized State general revenue funds for 43 percent of the Phase II study cost, seven percent of this cost was provided through donations for the Water Partnership held in trust by Northwest Missouri State University (CDM/Bartlett and West, 2009). The Phase II study estimated future water needs, developed a conceptual design and preliminary cost estimate, and estimated preliminary wholesale water rates.

A 2.6-percent annual increase in demand was used to determine the projected water need for the study area in the year 2030. This annual increase in demand was calculated using the average annual water consumption increase since 1994. Using this assumption, future infrastructure must meet the demand of 26.25 million gallons per day (MGD) for the area.

This conceptual design assumed three major water suppliers; Atchison County Wholesale Water Commission (ACWWC), Missouri-American in St. Joseph, and the City of Plattsburg, with pipeline and pumping capacity in place that would accommodate additional suppliers. The conceptual design includes 299 miles of pipeline, which ranges from 8 to 36-inches in diameter. This pipeline design includes wholesale master meters that allow each county to buy, sell, and transmit water. The proposed transmission system requires nine pump stations and six intermediate storage tanks to keep the system within reasonable pressure ranges. The piping, pumping, and storage facilities for the conceptual plan are shown in Figure 2-3.

The preliminary cost estimate (Table 2-2) included calculations of the following components:

Initial Construction Costs. Costs for the construction of the pump stations, water storage facilities, and pipeline for the conceptual design were made based on similar, recent projects in the Phase II report. Assumptions are outlined in Section 8.1 of the Phase II report (CDM/Bartlett and West, 2009).

Treatment Plant Expansion. Expansions at the three major water suppliers are required to meet estimated peak demands. The Plattsburg and ACWWC facilities require a 6.0 MGD expansion, while the Missouri-American plant requires a 3.0 MGD. Assumptions for cost calculations are outlined in Section 8.1 of the Phase II report (CDM/Bartlett and West, 2009).

Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs were represented by annual expenditures for staffing, energy costs, storage repainting, and pipeline maintenance and repair. Calculations were carried out



based on data from comparable systems. Assumptions for O&M calculations are outlined in Section 8.3 of the Phase II report (CDM/Bartlett and West, 2009).

Annual Renewal and Replacement Costs. The Phase II report assumed complete replacement of each component at the end of its lifespan in addition to one-time project incidentals. Annual renewal and replacement calculations were conducted for pump station, storage tank, and pipeline replacement. Assumptions for these calculations are described in Section 8.2 of the Phase II report (CDM/Bartlett and West, 2009).

Water Purchase Costs. Data from the ACWWC, Missouri-American, and the City of Plattsburg facilities were used to estimate water purchase costs. Purchase costs were calculated to be $2.28 for 1,000 gallons of water produced. Assumptions for this calculation are outlined in Section 8.4 of the Phase II report (CDM/Bartlett and West, 2009). The calculation for these costs is further discussed in Section 3 of this report.

Table 2-2 Conceptual Plan Preliminary Cost Estimate

(Adapted from CDM/Bartlett and West, 2009) Initial Costs

Initial Construction Costs Pump Stations $13,000,000

Water Storage Tanks $7,200,000

Pipeline $129,200,000

Treatment Plant Expansion $22,300,000

Total-Initial Costs $171,700,000

Annual Costs Annual O&M Costs Staffing $300,000

Energy Costs $857,400

Storage Repainting $60,000

Pipeline maintenance and repair $30,000

Subtotal-Annual O&M Costs $1,247,400Annual Renewal and Replacement Costs

Pump Stations (20 yrs) $388,800

Water Storage Tanks (40 yrs) $107,500

Pipeline (60 yrs) $1,300,000

Subtotal-Renewal and Replacement Costs $1,796,300Water Purchase Costs Cost per 1,000 gal $2.28

Subtotal-Water Purchase Cost (4,727 million gal) $10,800,000

Total-Annual Costs $13,843,700




The Phase II report also provided an estimated wholesale rate requirement. Financial analysis of the rate requirement was based on three scenarios:

Scenario 1. 100 percent revenue bond financing

Scenario 2. 80 percent revenue bond financing and 20 percent grant funding

Scenario 3. 50 percent revenue bond financing and 50 percent grant funding.

Results of the assessment are presented in Table 2-3. Further discussion of the assumptions used for this analysis is presented in Section 9 of the Phase II report (CDM/Bartlett and West, 2009).

Table 2-3 Annual Wholesale Rate Requirements

(Adapted from CDM/Bartlett and West, 2009) Item Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Estimated Annual Debt Service $12,474,000 $9,980,000 $6,237,000

Estimated O&M Costs (from Table 2-2) $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000

Estimated Annual Renewal and Replacement (from Table 2-2) $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000

Estimated Annual Water Purchase (from Table 2-2) $10,800,000 $10,800,000 $10,800,000

Total Estimated Revenue Requirement $26,374,000 $23,880,000 $20,137,000

Estimated Cost per 1,000 gallons $6.17 $5.59 $4.71

Estimated Customer Monthly Wholesale Cost (5,000 gallons) $30.87 $27.95 $23.57



Section 3 Cost of Water 3.1 Introduction This section provides a standard method for calculating the costs associated with treating and supplying finished water. The method is based on the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Manual of Water Supply Practices Manual M1 (AWWA, 2000). This information is useful to entities that are considering the purchase of water from the GNWWWC instead of maintaining independent treatment systems.

3.2 Cost of Producing Potable Water Costs are based on setting rates to cover projected expenses of finished water. The AWWA Manual M1 describes a cash-needs approach for projecting revenue requirements for a utility without accounting for depreciation. Please note that the AWWA cash-needs approach was modified for use in this study to provide a predictive comparison. The modified approach is comprised of four major components that are briefly discussed below.

O&M Expenses. Recurring and nonrecurring expenses to operate and maintain infrastructure associated with producing finished water.

Debt Service Payments. The debt service component includes principal and interest payment on bonds, loans or other debt instruments associated with water production.

Contribution to Specified Reserves (Savings). Savings or reserve accounts used to provide funds for emergency use, unexpected major repairs and routine repairs and replacement associated with potable water production.

Capital Expenditures. Classified as (1) normal annual (routine) replacement of existing facilities; (2) normal annual extensions and improvements; and (3) major capital replacements and improvements associated with potable water.

Using these parameters, the cost for of producing potable water can be calculated as shown in Equation 3-1 below.

Equation 3-1 Calculation of the Cost of Finished Water using Revenue Requirements

GeneratedWaterofGallonsesExpenditurCapitalSavingsPaymentServiceDebtExpensesMO

GallonsWaterPotableofCost

000,1&

000,1+++

=

This cost of producing potable water can then be compared to the cost to purchase potable water.


Section 3 Cost of Water


3.3 Potable Water Production Costs for Hypothetical Treatment Facility in Northwest Missouri Joining the GNWWWC will impact the cost to water systems. To quantify how the water costs will change, facility managers must be sure that they are comparing the GNWWWC wholesale rate to the current cost of producing water adjusted for depreciation. Depreciation is an annual allowance required to recover the initial capital cost of the equipment and infrastructure associated with a facility. Many distributors do not account for depreciation when calculating water rates and thus do not currently recover all costs caused by that utility.

Table 3-1 provides example cost of producing potable water for two typical, but hypothetical drinking water facilities – a surface water treatment plant and a well source with chlorination only. This cost per 1,000 gallons can best be compared to the average wholesale water rate of the GNWWWC. From Section 2.3.2 and Table 2-2, the average wholesale water rate for the GNWWWC’s conceptual plan was estimated to be $2.28 per 1,000 gallons (CDM/Bartlett & West, 2009).

Table 3-1 Annual Cost of Finished Water for Example Facilities

Treatment Facility Source Only

With

Depreciation Without

Depreciation With

Depreciation Without

Depreciation Operations and Maintenance −− −− −− −−

Power Consumption $180,000 $180,000 $60,000 $60,000 Chemical Consumption $20,000 $20,000 $4,000 $4,000

Operating Staff $150,000 $150,000 $25,000 $25,000 Miscellaneous $110,000 $110,000 $10,000 $10,000

Savings $25,000 $25,000 $15,000 $15,000 Capital Expenditures $45,000 $45,000 $17,000 $17,000 Debt Service Payments $150,000 $150,000 $20,000 $20,000 Depreciation $175,000 −− $16,000 −− Total Annual Expenditures $855,000 $680,000 $167,000 $151,000

Annual Finished Water Produced (x1,000 gallons) $275,000 $275,000 $60,000 $60,000

Cost per 1,000 gallons* $3.11 $2.47 $2.78 $2.52 *Cost per 1,000 gallons = Total Annual Expenditures/Annual Finished Water Produced (x 1,000 gallons)

Section 4 Current and Future Regulatory Issues 4.1 Introduction This section was prepared by MDNR and provides a brief summary of regulatory issues that impact surface water and groundwater supplies as of February 2010. Regulatory issues discussed include Stage 1 and Stage 2 Disinfectants/Disinfection By-Product (D/DBP) Rules, the Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR), the Groundwater Rule, the Lead and Copper Rule Short-Term Revisions, and the future Revised Total Coliform Rule.

4.2 Stage 1 and Stage 2 Disinfectants/Disinfection By-Product Rules The Stage 1 D/DBP Rule applies to all community and nontransient noncommunity water systems that treat water with a chemical disinfectant for either primary or residual treatment. The rule sets maximum residual disinfectant levels for chlorine, chloramine and chlorine dioxide and tightens the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for disinfection by-products. A system is in compliance when the running annual average (computed quarterly) of samples taken in the distribution system is less than or equal to the MCLs.

The Stage 2 DBP rule builds upon Stage 1 and was published in the Federal Registrar in January 2006. Stage 2 makes a significant change to the compliance calculation of Stage 1. The rule became effective in Missouri on Ocrober 30, 2009. Under Stage 2 D/DBP, a system must be in compliance with a Locational Running Annual Average (LRAA). A LRAA requires that compliance be calculated for each monitoring location in the distribution system. This is a much more stringent standard than systems have been required to meet. Monitoring locations will be determined though a distribution system evaluation that identifies the locations with high disinfection by-product concentrations. This rule also requires each system to determine if they have exceeded an operational evaluation level. A system that exceeds an operational evaluation level is required to review their operational practices and submit a report to MDNR that identifies actions that will mitigate future high DBP levels, particularly those that may jeopardize compliance with the disinfection by-product MCLs.

Stage 2 D/DBP applies to all community and nontransient noncommunity water systems that add or deliver water that is treated with a primary or residual disinfectant other than ultraviolet light. The Stage 2 D/DBP rule affects 93 systems in northwest Missouri. This includes any community and nontransient community system that either chlorinate or buy and sell chlorinated water. The major provisions of Stage 2 D/DBP will cost affected public water systems in Missouri an average of $29,160 per system each year plus a total of $18,155,784 in one-time costs. These costs are based on national data provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and extrapolated to Missouri based on population (McCarty, 2010). Please note that Stage 1 and Stage 2 rules are regulated throughout the whole distribution system and may be easier to attain and more cost-effective for a region-wide system than individual systems.


Section 4 Current and Future Regulatory Issues

4.3 Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule The LT2ESWTR is the fourth in a series of surface water treatment rules from the EPA. The surface water treatment rules apply to all public water systems using surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water regardless of size. The LT2ESWTR became effective in Missouri on October 30, 2009.

LT2ESWTR requires that systems monitor for Cryptosporidium (or for small systems, E. coli) to determine their treatment “bin.” A bin is a treatment category system based on their monitoring results. Systems falling in the lowest bin face no additional treatment requirements. Systems classified in the higher bins must provide additional treatment to further reduce Cryptosporidium levels. Systems must select from different treatment and management options in a “microbial toolbox” to meet their additional treatment requirements. Also, systems must review their current level of microbial treatment before making a significant change in their disinfection practice.

MDNR estimates that the rule will affect 89 public water systems in Missouri, ten of which are located in northwest Missouri. The rule will cost an estimated $475,848 for each of these ten systems, actual costs will depend on individual characteristics of the treatment facility (McCarty, 2010). Since the rule was implemented, two systems in northwest Missouri have been required to implement cryptosporidium monitoring. Depending on the results from a year of sampling (two samples per month), these systems may have to provide additional log removal for E. Coli (Timmons, 2010).

4.4 Groundwater Rule The groundwater rule (GWR) is applicable to all public water systems in Missouri (community and noncommunity) using ground water. This also includes systems that mix surface and groundwater if the groundwater is added directly to the distribution system and provided to consumers without treatment. The GWR was published in the Federal Registrar in 2006 and requires frequent inspections of systems, triggered source water monitoring, corrective action to resolve significant deficiencies or source water fecal contamination, and compliance monitoring to ensure that treatment technology reliably achieves inactivation or removal of viruses. When a system has a significant deficiency or a fecal indicator positive source water sample, the system will be put on a compliance schedule and must implement one or more of the following actions:

Correct all significant deficiencies.

Provide an alternate source of water.

Eliminate the source of contamination.

Provide treatment that reliably achieves at least 4-log treatment of viruses (using inactivation, removal, or a state-approved combination of 4-log virus inactivation and removal).

As of December 1, 2009 all public water systems in northwest Missouri are affected by this rule.


Section 4 Current and Future Regulatory Issues


4.5 Lead and Copper Rule Short-Term Revisions The Lead and Copper Rule is applicable to public water systems that are classified as community water systems or non-transient, non-community water systems (e.g., systems that provide water to people in locations such as schools, office buildings, restaurants, etc.); state primacy agencies; and local and tribal governments. Facilities were required to comply by December 10, 2009. The rule modifies the following monitoring requirements:

Requires systems to gain state approval before changing treatment

Requires systems to notify owners/occupants of homes and buildings of monitoring; requires utilities to reconsider previously “tested-out” lines when resuming lead service line replacement programs

Changes the content, delivery method, and timeframe of delivery for public notice

Requires educational statements about lead in drinking water to be included in all Consumer Confidence Reports

4.6 Revised Total Coliform Rule EPA is currently working on major revisions to the Total Coliform Rule that will affect all public water systems. The revisions require special assessments of water systems, investigation and correction of sanitary defects, and increased monitoring for high-risk small systems with unacceptable compliance history or significant non-compliance. In order to qualify for reduced monitoring, requirements for well-operated small systems should include a clean sanitary survey and at least two years of good compliance history. In addition, an annual on-site visit, a cross connection control program, or continuous disinfection may also be required. EPA expects to propose this rule in 2010 and have a final rule in place in 2012.

Topic 4 Current and Future Regulatory Issues



Section 5 Drinking Water Sources 5.1 Introduction The northwest region of Missouri as defined for this study consists of Andrew, Atchison, Buchanan, Caldwell, Clinton, DeKalb, Daviess, Gentry, Harrison, Holt, Nodaway, and Worth Counties. This section provides a description of the availability, reliability, and quality of sources for drinking water in this region. This description is based on underlying geologic formations and studies on current drinking water sources in northwest Missouri. These geologic formations and current sources are shown in Figure 5-1.

Figure 5-1was adapted from the October 2009 Public Drinking Water Wells Northwestern Missouri map (MDNR, 2009) that is provided in Appendix A. All data was compiled by MDNR and edited by CDM to reflect changes based the latest inspection reports, an interview with William Hills, and comments from David Williams of MDNR and GNWWWC members. In the figure, recent river alluvium deposits are shown as gray, thick glacial deposits greater than 100 feet in preglacial valleys and channels are shown in green, and glacial deposits less than 100 feet thick are shown in yellow. Discussions on how the type of geologic formation impacts water availability, reliability, and quality is presented in Sections 5.2.2, 5.3.3, and 5.4.2, respectively. Please note that in Figure 5-1 the well and reservoir locations may not be within the indicated city or county. For example, the well field for Harrison County PWSD #2 is actually located in Daviess County.

Information on reliability is based on the recent facility assessments (Hills, 2007; Hills, 2009), and the Missouri State Water Plan Series (Miller and Vandike, 1997). Information on source availability and quality comes from reports prepared by the MDNR for county and statewide water assessments and are listed below.

Studies by MDNR on the groundwater possibilities by county, conducted from 1956 to 1960 (Water Resources Report [WR]-3 to WR-18). Studies were not conducted for counties lacking viable water supply.

Inspection reports of water systems conducted between 2003 and 2006 by MDNR.

The Phase I and Phase II reports prepared for the Water Partnership for Northwest Missouri.

5.2 Regional Water Availability 5.2.1 Surface Water Availability One of the largest surface water sources in northwest Missouri is Smithville Lake, part of which is located in Clinton County. Smithville Lake provides drinking water to the City of Kansas City, the City of Smithville, and the City of Plattsburg. Other substantial surface water sources include Mozingo Lake in the City of Maryville, Grindstone Reservoir and Cameron Lakes near the City of Cameron.


Section 5 Drinking Water Sources



"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

""

""

""

""

" """

"""

""

"" """

""

"

""

""" ""

"""

"

"

""""

"""

"

"

"""

"

""""""

""

"

""

"

""

"

""

"

""

"""""""

""

"

"

"""

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

Missouri R

iver

City of Cameron-Cameron Reservoir

NodawayRiver

City of Cameron-Grindstone Reservoir

City of Bethany-Bethany LakesCity of Maryville-

County Seat

Caldwell County-Otter Creek

Caldwell Co.PWSD #1

City ofCraig

City of Oregon

City of Osborn

City of Graham

City of AlbanyCity of Fairfax

City of Hopkins

City ofBraymer

City ofBolckow

City of Barnard

City of Skidmore

City of Sheridan

City ofKingston

City ofSavannah

City ofGallatin

City ofMaitland

City of Clearmont

City ofRavenwoodCity of Rock Port

City ofMound City

City of Pattonsburg

City of Breckenridge

City ofConception Junction

City ofBurlington Junction

Harrison Co. PWSD #2

Livingston Co.PWSD #4

Missouri AmericanWater Company

City of Tarkio

HoltCounty

NodawayCounty

HarrisonCounty

GentryCounty

DaviessCounty

DekalbCounty

AtchisonCounty

ClintonCounty

AndrewCounty

CaldwellCounty

WorthCounty

BuchananCounty

US 36

OneHundredandTwoRiver

US69

US 159US59

US 275

US 136

US169

US169

US 36

US 59

US169

US 136

US169

US59

US71

US 136

US136

US59

US169

US69

US69

US 136

US 59

US 59

US 71

US69

US169

I-29

I-229

I-35

I-29

I-229

Missouri River

TarkioRiver

PlatteRiver

City of Plattsburg-Smithville Reservoir

City of Maryville-Mozingo Lake

Daviess CountyPWSD #3-Lake Viking

City of Maysville-Willowbrook Lake

City of Hamilton-Hamilton Lake

City of Stanberry-Middle ForkGrand River Reservoir

City of Bethany-Harrison Co. Lake C-1(West Big Fork Lake)

City of King City-King City Lake

City of Breckenridge-Breckenridge Lake

King City-County Seat

Grant City- County Seat

City of Oregon-County Seat

City of Albany-County Seat

City of Gallatin-County Seat

City of Savannah-County Seat

City of Bethany -County Seat

City of Maysville-County Seat

City of Rock Port-County Seat

City of Plattsburg-County Seat

City of St. Joesph-County Seat

Active Drinking WaterSources

Northwest Missouri Regional WaterSupply Transmission System Study

Phase III-2010

Figure 5-1

5 County Seats

" Groundwater Well Locations & Ownership

" Surface Water Locations & Ownership

Major Streams

Major Roads

Northwest Missouri Counties

Alluvium Deposits

Glacial Deposits10 - 100 ft

>100 ft

0 100,00050,000Feet

1 inch equals 50,000 feet

Ü


Historically, the Missouri River, the One Hundred and Two River, and other smaller rivers have been used either directly or indirectly as a water source (Hills, 2010). Currently, no water producers use rivers as an independent water source. Facilities may, however, use rivers to supplement water supply. The Mozingo Reservoir in the City of Maryville was constructed to receive supplemental flows from the One Hundred and Two River. Other cities have discontinued their use of smaller rivers as an independent supply source due to the unreliability of river flow.

5.2.2 Groundwater Sources Availability 5.2.2.1 Geologic Formations in the Northwest Region of Missouri Northwest Missouri is located in the Dissected Till Plains sub-province of the Central Lowlands physiographic province. This area is characterized by thick Pleistocene-age glacial sediments and recent alluvial deposits. These sediments overlie Pennsylvanian-age and older bedrock formations. Prior to the onset of glacial activity rolling hills and numerous valleys were developed throughout northern Missouri. Glaciers extended as far south as the Missouri River carrying boulders, gravel, sand, silt and clay derived en route from areas to the north. The weight of the ice and abrasive nature of the debris altered the existing landscape. Glacial deposits up to 300 feet thick were deposited in some areas. Glacial drift is well sorted stratified material that was transported and deposited by melt water. In areas were these sediments were deposited in preglacial valleys and channels, the glacial materials are relatively clean and consist mostly of sand with some gravel. Glacial till deposits are heterogeneous and non-stratified material that was transported by the ice. Erosion has greatly modified the landscape since the last period of glaciation. In some areas the glacial material has been completely removed leaving Pennsylvanian bedrock exposed at the surface.

The extensive preglacial drainage system in northwest Missouri was rerouted or covered by glacial activity. The Grand River, which today traverses the area from northwest to southeast, is thought to be the approximate path of the preglacial Missouri River. Glacial movement rerouted the ancestral river, and moved it into its present channel along the northwestern edge of the state. Prior to glaciation, all of these drainage systems had alluvial deposits underlying their floodplains, with the larger streams having more extensive alluvial deposits than the smaller ones. These drainage systems were filled with glacial deposits.

Bedrock Aquifer The Pennsylvanian- age bedrock that underlies glacial deposits in northwest Missouri consists of relatively thin limestone, sandstone, and shale units with occasional coal seams. These units generally become thicker to the northwest and are up to 1,800 feet thick in the Forest City Basin. In general, the vertical and horizontal permeability of the Pennsylvanian units is poor. As a result these units typically yield low quantities of water. Recharge to the Pennsylvanian rock from overlying glacial drift and precipitation is very poor. Thus, these deposits are not considered to be a viable source of groundwater. The quality of water obtained from these formations is usually marginal at best. Deeper units generally contain progressively more mineralized groundwater (Miller and Vandike, 1997).



Glacial Drift Aquifer Glacial materials provide the most widespread groundwater resources. However, in northwest Missouri, there are limited deposits of glacial materials. The areas with the highest potential yields are drift-filled preglacial valleys where pre-Pleistocene alluvial deposits were covered with glacial drift. The preglacial valleys in northwest Missouri are shown in dark green shading in Figure 5-1.

The average yield from glacial materials can range from less than 5 gallons per minute (gpm) to 500 gpm depending on thickness, composition and other factors. In the northwest region of Missouri, yields from glacial materials are typically lower than in other regions of the state For example, Livingston County, which lies just east of Daviess County outside of the study area, has wells in a preglacial channel that produce 500 to 1,000 gpm. The same channel underlies the City of Gallatin and north-central Daviess County. Gallatin wells produce 250 to 300 gpm per well. The well field for Harrison County PWSD #2 is also located in the same preglacial channel, but wells produce only 100 to 150 gpm (Vandike, 2010).

In some areas, the alluvial deposits found in these preglacial drainage systems yield from 100 to 500 gpm. These preglacial alluvial deposits are limited in area extent and are found in narrow linear trends. The preglacial alluvial valleys can contain more than 100 feet of clean sand and gravel. The glacial drift of northwest Missouri is a complex geologic deposit that can vary in thickness and texture over a relatively short distance. It is often necessary to drill several test holes to locate the most water-productive materials. The following counties have municipal wells in these preglacial valleys: Andrew, Gentry, and Daviess.

The direction of groundwater flow in the shallow glacial sediments is a factor that is controlled by the present-day surface topography and the direction of flow in the deeper glacial sediments is controlled by the preglacial topography impressed on the Pennsylvanian bedrock beneath the drift. Water bearing zones may be perched or isolated within impermeable zoned due to the nature of the deposits. Groundwater flow in glacial material is generally very slow. The water quality of the shallow glacial deposits is much better than the underlying bedrock deposits. Groundwater in the buried, preglacial channels generally tends to be of poorer quality than the shallow glacial sediments due to the poor recharge potential and local leakage of water from adjacent bedrock formations.

Recent River Alluvium Alluvium deposits exist throughout northwest Missouri as shown in Figure 5-1. All counties in the study area have wells in alluvium deposits. In general, alluvial sediments tend to be progressively finer as the distance from the mouth of the river increases. Alluvial deposits from major streams and their tributaries tend to be finer-grained and much less permeable than the Missouri River alluvium. The deposits from stream valleys were derived from the weathering of the glacial drift. Since the shallow glacial sediments are predominately clay, silt and fine sand, the eroded material transported into the tributary streams tends to be fine grained.



The thickness of the alluvial material in the major streams in this region ranges from a few feet in headwater reaches to approximately 60 feet in the southern part of the region. The saturated thickness of the material ranges from 10 feet in the north to about 45 feet in the south. There are relatively few wells or test holes that penetrate river alluvium in the study area. In general, the most favorable alluvium deposits are associated with the Missouri River and lower parts of the Grand and Chariton rivers.

Eight counties in the study area pull water from recent alluvium deposits for drinking water. These include Andrew, Atchison, Caldwell, Daviess, Harrison, Holt, Nodaway, and Worth Counties.

Missouri River Alluvium The Missouri River alluvium is a very important and widely used water source in Missouri. The Missouri River has carved a valley that contains up to about 150 feet of highly-permeable alluvial sediments that is up to 11 miles wide in some areas of northwest Missouri. The average thickness of the Missouri River alluvium in the northwestern portion of the state is approximately 90 feet. It generally consists of several feet of clay and silt near the surface, underlain by sand and gravel.

Wells drilled into the Missouri River alluvium account for approximately 18 percent of the total groundwater wells in the study area. Wells completed in the Missouri River alluvium have the potential to yield 2,000 gpm (Miller and Vandike, 1997). However, as the Missouri River alluvium underlies only the very western part of the study region, it is not feasible for rural communities that aren’t located directly on the alluvium to develop a well field and then transport the raw water. Long-distance water conveyance becomes more affordable for larger service populations (Vandike, 2010).

5.2.2.2 Hydrologic Potential of Geologic Formations in the Northwest Region of Missouri Groundwater sources in northwest Missouri are derived from water stored in the thick Pleistocene-age glacial sediments and recent alluvial deposits. These geologic formations are shown in Figure 5-1. The locations of existing drinking water sources-both surface and ground are also shown on Figure 5-1. The thickest water-bearing formation is the preglacial valley fill deposits, shown in green on Figure 5-1. These deposits are greater than 100 feet thick and produce more water than the glacial till/drift formations. Figure 5-1 shows the glacial till formations less than 100 feet thick in yellow and the recent alluvium deposits in gray.

The hydrologic potential of the geologic formations in northwest Missouri are outlined in Table 5-1. This table presents the geologic deposits in chronological order by series; from the oldest and deepest Pennsylvanian-aged bedrock layer to the more recent glacial and alluvium deposits. The yield estimates in Table 5-1 are based on 1950s test drilling studies and no actual wells were constructed. These yield estimates were made based only on drillers experience and examination of cuttings and the yields may be over-estimated (Vandike, 2010).



In general, the Missouri River alluvium and the preglacial deposits are the largest producers of groundwater in the northwest region of Missouri. More than 60 percent of the study area’s deep glacial till aquifer is located in Harrison County, while Nodaway, Gentry, DeKalb, and Atchison County each contain more than 10 percent of northwest Missouri’s shallow glacial deposits. Alluvium deposits associated with the Missouri River, Nodaway River, and One Hundred and Two River in Holt, Nodaway, and Atchison Counties may also produce moderate quantities of water.



Table 5-1 Hydrological Potential of Geologic Formations

(adapted from Brookshire 1997)

System Series Formation Physical

Characteristics of Formation

Hydrologic Potential of Formation

Qua

tern

ary

Recent Missouri River Alluvium and other Alluvium Deposits

Sand and gravel with interbedded silt and clay deposited by stream action

Yields 30 to 500 gpm where sufficient thickness of saturated permeable sand and gravel is present

Pleistocene Glacial Till or Drift (10 to 100-ft depths)

Heterogeneous mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and boulder-size material

2 to 50 gpm available to well where clean, permeable sand and gravel are present

Preglacial Valley Fill (> 100-ft depths)

Sand and gravel with interbedded silt and clay deposited by stream action

Preglacial alluvium may yield as much as 500 gpm where saturated thickness and permeabilities allow

Penn

sylv

ania

n

Virginian Wabunsee Group

Shale, siltstone, and sandstone

Not considered to be water bearing. Very small quantities of water (1/2 to 1 gpm) may be obtained locally from the limestone sequences

Shawnee Group

Thick limestone formations with intervening shale beds

Douglas Group Dominantly clastic formations. Shale, sandstone, and thin limestone

Missourian Pedee Group A thick sequence of shale with limestone at the top

Small amounts of a water (1 to 3 gpm) local from thicker formations

Lansing Group Two thick limestone sequences separated by shale and sandstone

Kansas City Group

Thick limestone formations with intervening shale, some sandstone beds, black, fissle shale in lower part

Not generally water bearing

Pleasanton Group

Thick shale sequence with sandstone in lower part. Few thin limestone beds and siltstones. Scattered coal beds

Desmoinesian Marmaton Group

Shale, limestone, clay, and coal beds

Cherokee Group

Sandstone, siltstone, and shale

Small yields (1 to 3 gpm) of potable water at depths less than 100-ft in outcrop area

1Yields based only on drillers experience and examination of cuttings, no actual wells were constructed




5.3 Regional Water Reliability 5.3.1 Drought Susceptibility Missouri is hydrologically diverse with average annual rainfall (34 to >46 inches), runoff (5 to 20 inches), and lake evaporation (36 to 44 inches) varying across the state. The 12-county study area has the lowest average annual rainfall (34 to 36 inches) and, therefore, the lowest amount of runoff (5 to 7 inches) in the state. The average annual lake evaporation rate in the study area ranges from 38 to 42 inches.

The Missouri Drought Response Plan (Miller and Hays, 1995) divided the state into three regions prioritized according to drought susceptibility, and defined as follows.

Region A. Low drought susceptibility. Surface and groundwater resources are generally adequate for domestic, municipal, and agricultural needs.

Region B. Moderate drought susceptibility. Groundwater resources are adequate to meet domestic and municipal water needs. However, due to required well depths, irrigation wells are very expensive.

Region C. Severe drought vulnerability. Surface water sources usually become inadequate during extended drought. Groundwater resources are normally poor, and typically supply enough water only for domestic needs. Irrigation is generally not feasible. When irrigation is practical, groundwater withdrawal may affect other users.

A majority of the 12-county study area is located in Region C as shown in Figure 5-2. Only areas along the Missouri River are not considered highly drought susceptible. Most streams in this region do not receive appreciable groundwater recharge and during periods of drought these streams are generally reduced in flow.

During the drought of 1988-89, water supplies for several municipalities were severely taxed, some to exhaustion. Other water users were forced to face severe economic losses (Miller and Hays, 1995). An August 26, 2003 Associate Press article by Amy Shafer in the Columbia Missourian contained the following accounts of the drought impact in northwestern Missouri:

Gov. Bob Holden on Monday asked the federal government to declare 39 western Missouri, drought-stricken counties disaster areas.

Holden asked for the following counties to be declared disasters: Andrew, Atchison, Barton, Bates, Benton, Buchanan, Caldwell, Carroll, Cass, Cedar, Chariton, Clay, Clinton, Cooper, Daviess, DeKalb, Gentry, Grundy, Harrison, Henry, Hickory, Holt, Jackson, Johnson, Lafayette, Linn, Livingston, Mercer, Morgan, Nodaway, Pettis, Platte, Putnam, Ray, St. Clair, Saline, Sullivan, Vernon, and Worth.

Because of the drought, many communities in northwest Missouri have called for voluntary or mandatory restrictions on water use.

Holt

Nodaway Harrison

Gentry

Daviess

Atchison

Dekalb

Clinton

Andrew

Caldwell

Worth

Buchanan

Drought Susceptibility

Northwest Missouri Regional WaterSupply Transmission System Study

Phase III-2010

Figure 5-2Region A: Slight Susceptibility

Region C:High Drought Susceptibility

0 140,00070,000Feet

1 inch equals 70,000 feet

Ü


Daviess County Public Water Supply District No. 1 placed some of its users under water use restrictions as demand increased in the last week because of high temperatures. The district asked residents south of Pattonsburg, including those in Weatherby, Winston, and Altamont, to stop filling swimming pools and stop watering lawns and gardens.

McIntosh, of the Department of Natural Resources, said the Grand River, near Gallatin, has dropped to a level expected only once every 50 years. If such hot, dry conditions continue for another week, McIntosh said, the river is expected to drop to a level seen only once every 100 years.

5.3.2 Surface Water Source Reliability Active surface water sources are located in Caldwell, Clinton, Daviess, DeKalb, Gentry, Harrison, and Nodaway Counties. Since the 2007 Phase I Report, three surface water facilities have been deactivated in Andrew, Daviess, and Harrison Counties. Each of these surface water sources can become jeopardized by reduced source water capacity during drought (Hills, 2009). This was confirmed by the Reservoir Operation Study Computer Program (RESOP) studies conducted by MDNR to determine the ability of the surface water sources to meet current demands under drought conditions. Analyses were conducted using rainfall data from the drought of record from 1951-1959 (Edwards et al. 2005).This and other reliability issues provided by input from GNWWWC members and Hills (2009) are summarized in Table 5-2.

5.3.3 Groundwater Source Reliability The reliability of groundwater as a drinking water source is dependent on the aquifer type, aquifer thickness, and recharge capability. Continued availability is also contingent upon the quality of the well screen and wall materials used in well construction, subsequent well treatment, and sustainable pump rates.

Thick alluvium and glacial deposits are generally the most reliable source of groundwater. The most prominent source in the study area is contained in the Missouri River alluvium along the northwest border of the study area. Strips of preglacial drift run throughout Andrew, Buchanan, Daviess, DeKalb, Harrison, Gentry, and Worth Counties. Glacial deposits that range from 10 to 100 feet in depth are located in a majority of counties in the study area. Wells constructed in shallow glacial drift are generally less reliable and may experience seasonal variation in water level. Water-bearing zones in these areas that seem adequate for well development may be surrounded by impermeable material and thus have a very low recharge capability (Miller and Vandike, 1997).

Several municipal groundwater systems have reported recent well closures due to low yields and reduced capacity. These facilities are located in Andrew, Caldwell, Daviess, Holt, Nodaway, and Worth counties as shown in Table 5-3 (Hills, 2007). Since the Phase I Report, three groundwater facilities have closed and six are considering the purchase of water from other sources. This is indicative that groundwater source capacity cannot sustain the pumping rates required to meet customer demands.




Table 5-2 Municipal Surface Water Supply Reliability Issues

County Location-Lake Name # Lakes Activity Reliability Issues

Andrew City of Savannah-Savannah Reservoir 1 Inactive Not an active source, the City now only uses

groundwater well source

Buchanan City of Dearborn-Dearborn

Reservoir 1 Emergency Supply Only

At risk of not meeting current demands during drought of record without additional sources

Caldwell

City of Breckenridge-Breckenridge Lake 1 Active

Lake fed by glacial deposit well, limited capacity, capable of meeting current demands during drought of record, may purchase water from Livingston County

City of Hamilton-Hamilton Reservoir 1 Active

Reduced raw water capacity with drought, at risk of not meeting current demands during drought of record without additional sources

Clinton

City of Cameron-Grindstone Reservoir &

Cameron Reservoirs 3 Active

Issues with disinfection byproducts, at risk of not meeting current demands during drought of record without additional sources

City of Plattsburg-Smithville Reservoir 1 Active Treatment challenges

Clinton City of Cameron- Cameron Reservoir #1 1 Inactive Silting problems

Daviess

Daviess County PWSD #3-Lake Viking 1 Active Capable of meeting current demands during

drought of record

City of Jamesport-Jamesport Community

Lake 1 Inactive

At risk of not meeting current demands during drought of record without additional sources, now purchases water from Livingston County

DeKalb City of Maysville-Willowbrook Lake 3 Active

Silting problems, inadequate treatment system, capable of meeting current demands during drought of record

Gentry

City of King City-King City Reservoirs 4 Active Capable of meeting current demands during

drought of record City of Stanberry-Middle

Fork Grand River Reservoir 1 Active Capable of meeting current demands during drought of record

Harrison

City of Bethany-Harrison County Lake C-1 and

Bethany Lakes 3 Active

Limited treated water capacity, capable of meeting demands during drought of record, risk of disinfection byproducts

City of Ridgeway-Rockhouse Lake 1 Process of

deactivation

Capable of meeting current demands during drought of record, in process of purchasing water from Harrison County PWSD #2

Harrison County PWSD #1-Eagleville Lake

1 Process of deactivation

At risk of not meeting current demands during drought of record without additional sources, silting problems, water quality issues, shallow depth, in process of purchasing water from Harrison County PWSD #2

Nodaway City of Maryville-Mozingo

Lake 1 Active Limited treatment capacity, capable of meeting current demands during drought of record


Table 5-3 Municipal Groundwater Supply Reliability Issues

County Location Number of Active Wells

Recent Well Closures (#-Reason) Reliability Issues

Andrew

City of Bolckow 4 2-no yield Recent well closures due to loss of water availability

City of Savannah 3 NR First well is over 50 years old, second well 20 years old, new well near first well, only using half capacity of treatment plant

City of Fillmore 0 2-no yield Poor water quality and little production

City of Rosendale 0 4-no yield Two wells have not produced water since the flood of 1993, limited yield from other well, wells prone to surface flooding

Atchison

City of Fairfax 2 4-NR Reaching end of life expectancy

City of Rock Port 3 NR NR

City of Tarkio 4 5-reduced capacity NR

Buchanan City of St. Joseph Missouri - American 7 1-NR NR

Caldwell

City of Braymer 4 1-NR NR

City of City of Breckenridge-Breckenridge Lake Lake 1 NR Source is nearly exhausted

Caldwell CO PWSD #1 2 NR NR

City of Kingston 3 NR NR

City of Polo 0 5-reduced capacity Treatment facilities are outdated, low production from wells

Daviess City of Gallatin 3 1-low yield Max use exceeds production capacity by 38%, problems

with solids carryover

City of Pattonsburg 4 3-low yield NR

DeKalb City of Osborn 2 NR NR

NR = Not Reported




Table 5-3 (Continued) Municipal Groundwater Supply Reliability Issues

County Location Number of Active Wells

Recent Well Closures (#-Reason) Reliability Issues

Gentry City of Albany 6 NR One well has high level of ammonia, location of new wells difficult

Harrison Harrison CO PWSD #2 6 1-NR Lowered water levels, should not construct additional wells until levels stabilize, supplemented by the City of Bethany

Holt

City of Craig 2 NR Requires more wells, build a larger lime softening plant, or purchase water

City of Maitland 2 2-nitrate MCLs City must notify customers of nitrate level, may supply water to the City of Graham

City of Mound City 2 3-low yield NR

City of Oregon 2 1-collapsed wall screen NR

Nodaway

City of Barnard 2 NR Treatment plant does not meet design standards, may purchase water from Nodaway County PWSD #1

City of Burlington Junction 3 NR

One well not properly sealed-susceptible to contamination, only one well adequate for production, currently building new treatment plant and will supply water to Nodaway County PWSD #1

City of Clearmont 2 1-NR Pending connection to Nodaway County PWSD #1, will abandon wells due to low yields

City of Conception Junction 3 NR May purchase water from Nodaway County PWSD #1

City of Graham 1 NR Will purchase water from Nodaway County PWSD #1 and City of Maitland

City of Hopkins 3 Several-low yield, screen failure Requires more wells to meet demands

City of Ravenwood 2 1-NR NR

City of Skidmore 3 3-low yield, screen failure Water level fluctuates with river, cannot be pumped below screen, may purchase water from Nodaway County PWSD #1

Worth City of Sheridan 2 3-no yield Does not meet daily demand, may purchase water from Nodaway County PWSD #1

NR = Not Reported


5.4 Regional Water Quality 5.4.1 Surface Water Sources Quality Since surface water is essential to the population’s water needs, water quality monitoring to ensure an adherence to drinking water standards is important (Brookshire, 1997). Generally, surface water in Missouri is of good quality, and the constituents are within the regulated limits (Vandike, 1995). Several operating facilities experience poor water quality during drought when water supplies are limited. Quality problems in raw water can also arise from underlying geologic formations and surrounding land use. Soil type also plays a role in water quality. Soils with large portions of clay or silt are impenetrable for water and prone to erosion. With these soil conditions, flooding is more probable and turbidity is higher in rivers and streams (Brookshire, 1997). Since a large portion of the study area possesses these soil conditions and the region is susceptible to meteorological extremes such as droughts and floods, raw water quality issues can arise.

Water quality issues identified in the Public Water Supply (PWS) Violations Database (MDNR, 2009) are presented by county in Table 5-4. Table 5-4 also outlines treatment processes used at each facility. The level and complexity of treatment is indicative of the quality of raw water, water that is of good quality does not require as much treatment. A majority of surface water treatment systems in northwest Missouri require several steps of treatment to provide clean drinking water.

MDNR water system inspection reports issued from 2005 through 2009 for facilities in the 12-county region were reviewed. Issues noted on the quality of treatment in the inspection reports included:

Contact time was not met with some of the chemicals.

Chlorination process was not long enough.

Unknown chemical doses.

Additional filter capacity needed.

High percent water loss.

Maintenance logs incomplete.

Time of chlorination not calculated.

Need to perform regular disinfectant residual monitoring.

Maximum contaminant level exceeded for a few constituents.

Maximum contaminate level for disinfection byproducts exceeded.

Samples should be taken on a regular basis and conducted to represent the water quality of a body of water.



Table 5-4 Municipal Surface Water Supply Quality Issues

Water Quality Issues¹ Treatment Processes²

C

arbo

n

Chl

orin

e D

ioxi

de

Chl

orite

Col

iform

Free

resi

dual

chl

orin

e

Nitr

ate-

Nitr

ite

Tota

l Hal

oace

tic A

cids

Tota

l Trih

alom

etha

nes

Turb

idity

Activ

ated

Car

bon

Chl

orin

atio

n

Chl

orin

e D

ioxi

de

Coa

gula

tion

Filtr

atio

n

Floc

cula

tion

Fluo

ridat

ion

Hyp

ochl

orin

atio

n

Per

man

gana

te

pH A

djus

tmen

t

Sed

imen

tatio

n

Slu

dge

Trea

tmen

t

Caldwell County X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Clinton County X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Daviess County X X X X X X X X X

DeKalb County X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Gentry County X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Harrison County X X X X X X X X X X X

Nodaway County X X X X X X X X X X X X

¹PWS Violation Database 1999-2009 ²2008 Census of Missouri Public Water Systems



5.4.2 Groundwater Sources Quality Groundwater quality is largely dependent on the aquifer type it is derived from. A brief description of the general quality concerns for each geologic formation is presented below:

Pennsylvanian- Age Bedrock Aquifer. The quality of water obtained from these formations is usually marginal at best. Deeper units generally contain progressively more mineralized groundwater. The shallow bedrock zones generally have total dissolved solids that range from 800 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to about 2,000 mg/L. The water can also contain excessive sulfate, chloride, iron and manganese (Miller and Vandike, 1997).

Pleistocene (Glacial Till and Preglacial Valley Fill) Aquifer. The water quality of the shallow glacial deposits is better than the underlying bedrock deposits (Miller and Vandike, 1997), but is not of good chemical quality (Vandike, 2010).Total dissolved solids range between 400 and 1,500 mg/L. Groundwater in the deep, buried preglacial channels generally tends to be of poorer quality than the shallow glacial sediments due to the poor recharge potential and local leakage of water from adjacent bedrock formations. Due to the chemical content, well screens typically become encrusted after a few years of use and reduce production. Many small facilities cannot afford the remedial treatments, such as acidification, to maintain pumping capacity (Vandike, 2010).

Recent Alluvium. The chemistry of the groundwater in the alluvial deposits along the major rivers and tributaries of northwest Missouri is similar to the chemistry of water from the alluvium of the Missouri river. However, iron and manganese levels tend to be even higher in the alluvium of the Missouri River tributaries, ranging between 0.4 mg/L to 18.0 mg/L for iron, and 0.3 mg/L to 1.8 mg/L for manganese. Total dissolved solids range from a low of 230 mg/L to a high of approximately 850 mg/L (Miller and Vandike, 1997).

Missouri River Alluvium. Groundwater quality in the alluvium of the Missouri River is typical of alluvial aquifers. At greater distances from the river, it is a moderately mineralized calcium bicarbonate type. Iron concentrations average as high as 6.0 mg/L and manganese averages about 3.0 mg/L. Closer to the river the total iron and manganese content will be much lower (Miller and Vandike, 1997).




Groundwater contamination potential is high in large diameter, shallow wells in alluvial or glacial drift due to the proximity to the surface. Pesticides were detected in several domestic wells throughout Nodaway, Gentry, Daviess, Clinton, and Caldwell counties during the 1997 assessment of groundwater resources. Shallow, large diameter wells also showed traces of nitrate and nitrate contamination during the 1997 assessment (Brookshire, 1997).

As shown in Table 5-5, a majority of municipal well facilities have water quality issues. Several facilities reported elevated levels of sulfates and chlorides and the presence of hard water. Other contamination was noted on an individual basis, including the fuel oxygenate methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), ammonia, and nitrate (Hills, 2007). A majority of wells in northwest Missouri require periodic acidification to maintain pumping capacity. Table 5-5 also outlines treatment processes used at each facility. The level and complexity of treatment is indicative of the quality of raw water. Water that is of good quality does not require as much treatment.


Table 5-5 Municipal Groundwater Supply Quality Issues

Water Quality Issues Treatment Processes³

Amm

onia

¹

Car

bon²

Chl

orid

es¹

Chl

orite

²

Col

iform

²

Har

d W

ater

¹

Iron¹

Man

gane

se¹

MTB

E C

onta

min

atio

n¹

Nitr

ates

¹

Res

idua

l Chl

orin

e²

Sul

fate

s²

Tota

l Hal

oace

rtic

Aci

d²

Tota

l Tria

halo

met

hane

s²

Turb

idity

²

Rou

tine

Aci

dific

atio

n

Aera

tion

Coa

gula

tion

Filtr

atio

n

Floc

cula

tion

Fluo

ridat

ion

Dis

infe

ctio

n

Pol

ypho

spha

te In

hibi

tor

Lim

e-so

da A

sh

Per

man

gana

te

pH A

djus

tmen

t

Rap

id M

ix S

edim

enta

tion

Andrew County X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Atchison County X X X X X X X X X X X

Buchanan County X X X X X X X X X

Caldwell County X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Daviess County X X X X X X X X X X

DeKalb County X X X X X

Gentry County X X X X X X X X X

Harrison County X X X X X X X

Holt County X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Nodaway County X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Worth County X X X X X X X X X

¹Hills, 2007

²PWS Violation Database 1999-2009

³2008 Census of Missouri Public Water Systems


City of Oregon

City of Mound City

City of Craig

City of Maitland

Holt Co. PWSD #1

Village of Big Lake

City of Fairfax

City of Tarkio

City of Rock Port

City of Westboro

Atchison Co. PWSD #1

Page Co. Iowa

Nodaway Co. PWSD #1 City of

Grant CityCity of

Conception Junction

Burlington Junction

City of Ravenwood

City of Clearmont

City of Graham

City of Barnard

City of Skidmore

City of Maryville

City of Parnell

Middle Fork Water Co.

City of Stanberry

Gentry Co. PWSD #2

City of Sheridan

Worth Co. PWSD #1

City of King City

City of Albany

Gentry Co. PWSD #1

City of New Hampton


City of Bethany

Daviess Co. PWSD #2

City of Jameson

City of CoffeyDaviess Co.

City of Gilman City

City of Ridgeway

City of Cainsville


City of Savannah

City of Bolkow

MO AmericanBuchanan Co.

Andrew Co. PWSD #3

City of Fillmore

Andrew Co. PWSD #4

Andrew Co. PWSD #2

City of Amazonia

Andrew Co. PWSD #1

City of Rosendale

City of Maysville

City of OsbornCity of Union

Star

DeKalb Co. PWSD #1

City of Clarksdale

City of Stewartsville

City of Gower

Airy Acres MHP

City of Cameron

Clinton Co. PWSD #3

Caldwell Co. PWSD #2

City of Plattsburg

Clinton Co. PWSD #2/4


Clinton Co. PWSD #1City of

EdgertonPlatte Co.

Buchanan Co. PWSD #1

Village of DeKalb

City of Hamilton

City of Breckenridge


Daviess Co. PWSD #3

City of JamesportCity of GallatinCity of

Pattonsburg

Daviess Co. PWSD #1

City of Easton

Andrew CountyAtchison County

Buchanan County

Caldwell County

City of Braymer

City of KingstonCity of Polo

Clinton County

City of Altamont

Daviess County

Dekalb County

Gentry County

Harrison County

Holt County

City of Hopkins

City of Elmo

Worth County

Figure 5-3 Northwest Missouri Water Supply

and Customer Flow ChartSurface Water

Source Supplier and Consumer

Groundwater Source Supplier and Consumer

Nodaway County

Big Lake State Park

Customer

Emergency Interconnection

Ray Co. PWSD #3

Ray Co. PWSD #2

Southern Iowa Rural Water Association

City of Guilford

Livingston Co. PWSD

#4


5.5 Drinking Water Sources by County The following subsections provide a summary on the availability, reliability, and quality of groundwater sources by county. Site-specific information was obtained from evaluation reports (Hills, 2007; Hills, 2009) and confirmed by information from the most recent system inspection reports conducted by MDNR. Please refer to Figure 5-1 for the locations of existing surface water and groundwater drinking water sources in relation to glacial deposits, alluvium deposits, and major rivers. As discussed in Section 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4, alluvium and glacial deposits are important players in the availability, reliability, and quality of water sources.

Figure 5-3 is a schematic that shows connections between drinking water suppliers and their customers. In the figure, surface water sources are shown as blue squares and groundwater sources are shown as green squares. The dotted line represents an emergency interconnection. These connections can be used as an emergency supply or a future permanent supply. Note that several sources do not have connections to other entities. This means the source only serves the city in which it is located. The schematic was created with information from the Phase I report and system evaluations conducted for both groundwater and surface water systems by William Hills (MDNR, 2007; Hills, 2007; Hills, 2009).

Table 5-6 outlines current drinking water treatment and source facilities in the northwest region of Missouri. The table includes information on the source type (groundwater or surface water) and geologic formation. Recall that the most reliable sources of groundwater are derived from the Missouri River alluvium, other alluvium deposits, and thick glacial deposited in preglacial valleys and channels.

In Table 5-6, the firm capacity presented for surface water sources summarizes RESOP studies conducted by MDNR as part of a supply study for the state of Missouri. The study analyzed the ability of the surface water sources to meet current demands under drought conditions. Analyses were conducted using rainfall data from the drought of record from 1951-1959 (Edwards et al. 2005). Treatment capacity and average daily use data in Table 5-6 were compiled in the Phase I report (MDNR, 2007). Values indicated with an asterisk were confirmed by consensus with MDNR staff, Water Partnership staff and presented in the Phase II report (CDM/Bartlett and West, 2009).



Table 5-6 Water Availability and Status of Active Drinking Water Sources in Northwest Missouri

Location-Lake Name Source Name and ID Supply Type Firm Yield Capacity¹ (MGD)

Treatment Capacity² (MGD)

Avg. Daily Use² (MGD)

Andrew County City of Bolckow Bolckow MO1010084 Groundwater-Alluvium NR 0.144 0.05

City of Savannah Savannah MO1010724 Groundwater-Missouri River Alluvium NR 1.5 0.55

Atchison County City of Fairfax Fairfax MO1010265 Groundwater-Alluvium NR 0.288 0.093³

City of Rock Port Rock Port MO1010696 Groundwater-Missouri River Alluvium NR 0.75 0.280³

City of Tarkio Tarkio MO1010786 Groundwater-Alluvium NR 0.75 0.161³

Buchanan County Missouri-American Water

Company MO AM Water MO1010714 Groundwater-Missouri River Alluvium NR 30.0 15.0

Caldwell County City of Braymer Braymer MO1010098 Groundwater-Alluvium NR 0.201 0.08

City of Breckenridge-Breckenridge Lake Breckenridge MO1010099 Surface Water Groundwater-Glacial

Deposits 0.052 0.151 0.048

Caldwell County PWSD #1 Caldwell County PWSD #1 MO1024078 Groundwater-Alluvium NR 0.068 0.03³

City of Hamilton-Hamilton Lake Hamilton MO1010342 Surface Water 0.19 0.648 0.185³

City of Kingston Kingston MO1010426 Groundwater-Alluvium NR 0.072 0.033³

Clinton County City of Cameron-Grindstone

Reservoir & Cameron Reservoirs

Cameron MO1010131 Surface Water 1.4 2.88 1.592³

City of Plattsburg-Smithville Lake Plattsburg MO1010648 Surface Water NR 1.453 0.923³

¹ MDNR RESOP Studies (MDNR, 2010)

² Phase 1 Report (MDNR, 2007) ³ Confirmed by Phase II Report (CDM/Bartlett and West, 2009) NR = Not Reported



Table 5-6 (Continued) Water Availability and Status of Active Drinking Water Sources in Northwest Missouri




Daviess County City of Gallatin Gallatin MO1010299 Groundwater-Glacial Deposits NR 0.400 0.377³

Daviess County PWSD #3-Lake Viking

Daviess County PWSD #3 MO1036130 Surface Water 2.46 0.2 0.058³

City of Pattonsburg Pattonsburg MO1010632 Groundwater-Alluvium and Glacial Deposits NR 0.432 0.250³

DeKalb County City of Maysville-Willowbrook

Lake Maysville MO1010510 Surface Water 0.45 0.576 0.115³

City of Osborn Osborn MO1010609 Groundwater-Glacial Deposits NR 0.086 0.030

Gentry County

City of Albany Albany MO101006 Groundwater-Alluvium and Glacial Deposits NR 1.0 0.430³

City of King City-King City Reservoir King City MO1010425 Surface Water 0.133 0.3 0.100³

City of Stanberry-Middle Fork Grand River Reservoir

Middle Fork Water County MO1070639 Surface Water 0.381 1.0 0.335

Harrison County City of Bethany-Harrison County

Lake and Bethany Lakes Bethany MO1010068 Surface Water 0.816 1.0 0.325³

Harrison County PWSD #2 Harrison County PWSD #2 MO1024242

Groundwater-Alluvium, Glacial, and Pennsylvanian Deposits NR 0.40 0.45³

Holt County City of Craig Craig MO1010191 Groundwater-Missouri River Alluvium NR 0.2 0.074³

City of Maitland Maitland MO1010489 Groundwater-Alluvium NR 0.1 0.025

City of Mound City Mound City MO1010548 Groundwater-Missouri River Alluvium NR 0.72 0.170³

City of Oregon Oregon MO1010605 Groundwater-Alluvium NR 0.432 0.175³

¹ MDNR RESOP Studies (MDNR, 2010) ² Phase 1 Report (MDNR, 2007) ³ Confirmed by Phase II Report (CDM/Bartlett and West, 2009) NR = Not Reported




Table 5-6 (Continued) Water Availability and Status of Active Drinking Water Sources in Northwest Missouri




Nodaway County City of Barnard Barnard MO1010046 Groundwater-Alluvium NR 0.05 0.022

City of Burlington Junction Burlington Junction MO1010117 Groundwater-Alluvium NR 0.13 0.045

City of Clearmont Clearmont MO1010173 Groundwater-Alluvium NR 0.05 0.017

City of Conception Junction Conception Junction MO1010182 Groundwater-Alluvium NR 0.05 0.015

City of Graham Graham MO1010319 Groundwater-Alluvium NR 0.064 0.018

City of Hopkins Hopkins MO1010378 Groundwater-Alluvium NR 0.144 0.041

City of Maryville-Mozingo Lake Maryville MO1010508 Surface Water 2.9 5.0 2.8

City of Ravenwood Ravenwood MO1010673 Groundwater-Alluvium NR 0.1 0.035

City of Skidmore Skidmore MO1010744 Groundwater-Alluvium NR 0.173 0.02

Worth County City of Sheridan Sheridan MO1010739 Groundwater-Alluvium NR 0.043 0.024³

1MDNR RESOP Studies (MDNR, 2010) 2Phase I Report (MDNR, 2007)

*Cofirmed by Phase II Report (CDM/Bartlett & West, 2009)

¹ MDNR RESOP Studies (MDNR, 2010) ² Phase 1 Report (MDNR, 2007) ³ Confirmed by Phase II Report (CDM/Bartlett and West, 2009) NR = Not Reported


5.5.1 Andrew County Water Potential based on Geologic Formations Andrew County is adjacent to five other Missouri counties and shares a small part of its border with Kansas. Andrew County contains limited glacial deposits in the far north and south part of the county. The southwest corner of Andrew County contains Missouri River alluvium. Approximately 8,000 acres (3 percent of county land area) was designated capable of supporting high yield wells based on these geologic formations during the 1957 survey of water possibilities (Fuller et al. 1957d). Samples taken from water wells during the 1957 study yielded water high in sulfates, chloride, and total dissolved solids (TDS). Test wells drilled into glacial deposits produced water that was high in iron. Some samples also contained excessive nitrates, presumably from agricultural contamination.

Current Surface Water Suppliers Andrew County does not have any surface water sources that provide drinking water for the area (MDNR, 2007). This county previously operated a surface water source in the City of Savannah and had access to the Smithville Reservoir (Gehrt, 2010).

Current Groundwater Suppliers Two cities have operational groundwater treatment facilities in Andrew County: the City of Savannah and the City of Bolckow. Facilities in both cities produce water that is hard and high in iron and manganese concentrations. Wells are periodically acidified to maintain pumping capacity. The treatment facility currently in use in the City of Savannah was built in 2009 and is currently operating at half capacity (Hills, 2010). The City operates three wells, the first of which was built over 50 years ago and is still a viable source of water. All three wells are located in Missouri River alluvium.

The City of Rosendale and the City of Fillmore closed their groundwater treatment facilities due to low water yields from the wells. The City of Rosendale groundwater treatment facility had utilized four groundwater wells drilled into alluvium deposits, until the low yield of the wells forced their closure. In addition to producing low yields, these wells were prone to inundation from surface flooding. The City of Rosendale now purchases water from the Andrew County PWSD #4 (Hills, 2010). The City of Fillmore also closed its facilities due to low production from its two alluvium wells. The City of Fillmore now obtains water from Andrew County PWSD #3 (Hills, 2010)

5.5.2 Atchison County Water Potential based on Geologic Formations Atchison County is located in the northwestern corner of the state. The county contains ample alluvial deposits within the Missouri River and Tarkio River floodplain. Approximately one-third of the county contains quaternary alluvium with the potential for high groundwater yields. Estimates of groundwater well production in the Missouri River alluvium exceed 1,200 gpm, while estimates in the Tarkio River alluvium range from 50 to 75 gpm (Heim et al. 1960b). The remaining part of the county consists of shallow glacial and alluvium aquifers.



Reported water quality results from a 1960 study on the groundwater resources of Atchison County by the Missouri Geological Survey and Water Resources indicated that groundwater from this area contained high levels of iron, but was generally of good quality (Heim et al. 1960b).

Current Surface Water Suppliers Atchison does not have any surface water sources that provide drinking water (MDNR, 2007).

Current Groundwater Suppliers There are three groundwater sources in Atchison County, including wells in the City of Fairfax, the City of Rock Port, and the City of Tarkio. Water from this county is generally hard and high in manganese. Tarkio has reported water high in sulfates and chlorides and has recently closed five wells due to reduced capacity. The City of Fairfax and the City of Tarkio are located near thick alluvium deposits and have the capacity to be expanded for local use (Hills, 2007).

In April 2007, Atchison County PWSD #1 voted to expand their boundaries to service the entire county (MDNR, 2007), which helped future overall regional water planning. In addition, the Atchison Wholesale Water Commission began the design for a water treatment plant in the summer of 2009, with construction expected by 2012. The Atchison County PWSD #1 is served by groundwater wells in the City of Rock Port.

5.5.3 Buchanan County Water Potential based on Geologic Formations Buchanan County is adjacent to three Missouri counties and the State of Kansas. The northern part of the county contains a large store of shallow glacial deposits and a thin strip of deep glacial deposits. The area most favorable for large-yield well development lies in the quaternary alluvium along the Missouri River on the western border of the country. Based on these formations, the 1957 study indicated that Buchanan County contains 40,000 acres with the potential for large-yield well development (Fuller et al. 1957c).

Samples taken from water wells during the 1957 study yielded water high in chloride and TDS. Test wells drilled into glacial deposits produced water of low mineral content, but high TDS (Fuller et al. 1957c).

Current Surface Water Suppliers Buchanan County does not contain an active surface water treatment facility (MDNR, 2007). Dearborn Reservoir, located near the City of Dearborn, was formerly the primary source of water for the City. The Reservoir was supplemented by water from Bee Creek. The City of Dearborn began purchasing water from the City of Kansas City in 2001. RESOP analysis found that the Reservoir could not independently meet current demands during the drought of record. However, with additional supply from Bee Creek, current demands could be met (MDNR, 2010).



Current Groundwater Suppliers The Missouri-American groundwater treatment facility is located in the City of St. Joseph in Buchanan County (Hills, 2007). The facility is served by nine gravel-walled wells and one collector well, all located in Andrew County, that produce water that is hard and high in iron. Wells at the facility are very reliable and produce water from the Missouri River alluvium.

5.5.4 Caldwell County Water Potential based on Geologic Formations Caldwell County contains an alluvium aquifer that runs through the center of the county from east to west. A small pocket of shallow glacial drift lies in the lower southeast corner of the county. No reports were available on the water quality or groundwater potential of the county based on geological formations.

Current Surface Water Suppliers Two surface water sources are currently available in Caldwell County, including in the City of Hamilton, and the City of Breckenridge. A potential future water supply reservoir is planned on Otter Creek.

Hamilton Reservoir in the City of Hamilton has a firm capacity of 0.19 MGD (MDNR, 2010) and is the primary source for the City of Hamilton and Caldwell County PWSD #2. Water quality and quantity from the City-owned reservoir is severely cut during periods of extended drought (Edwards et al. 2005) and does not meet demands. According to RESOP analysis, the Reservoir cannot meet current demands during the drought of record (MDNR, 2010). The reduced water quantity during these periods makes treatment more difficult (Hills, 2009). Additional needs could be met by diverting water from Marrowbone Creek (MDNR, 2010). Supplemental supply from Marrowbone Creek could increase the firm yield from Hamilton Reservoir to 0.27 MGD (MDNR, 2010).

Breckenridge Lake in the City of Breckenridge is a shallow lake fed by water from a well drilled into glacial deposits (Hills, 2010). The facility produces water at negligible rates with a firm capacity of 0.052 MGD (MDNR, 2010), and is not considered reliable (Hills, 2009). RESOP analysis concluded that the lake is not capable of meeting current demands during the drought of record (MDNR, 2010). The City may look to the Livingston County PWSD #4 for supplemental supply.

Otter Creek is the most recently commissioned surface water source in the northwest Missouri region. Although the project has local and federal support, the project will require additional fiscal assistance. When complete, Otter Creek Reservoir will provide 1.24 MGD for drinking water purposes (McIntosh, 2010b).



Current Groundwater Suppliers Four cities in Caldwell County have active groundwater treatment facilities. This includes alluvium wells in the City of Braymer and the City of Kingston and glacial wells in the City of Breckenridge and Caldwell County PWSD #1. All facilities use acidification for periodic maintenance and produce water that is hard and high in manganese. The City of Breckenridge uses groundwater to fill the Breckenridge Lake, as discussed previously.

The City of Polo no longer produces finished water from a groundwater supply. Although the capacity of the alluvium wells is viable, the City of Polo has experienced treatment difficulties and is currently in the process of plugging and abandoning their remaining wells. The City now purchases water from Ray County PWSD #3. The City does not provide any additional treatment (Hills, 2010).

5.5.5 Clinton County Water Potential based on Geologic Formations Clinton County consists primarily of sparse alluvial deposits. A store of shallow glacial deposits exists in the southwest corner of the county near Smithville Lake and also in the northern part of the county. No reports were available on the water quality or groundwater potential of the county based on geologic formations.

Current Surface Water Suppliers Clinton County has the largest available surface water supply in the region with reservoirs in the City of Cameron and near the City of Plattsburg (MDNR, 2007).

Two reservoirs in the City of Cameron and the Grindstone reservoir serve as surface water supply to the City of Cameron. The City of Cameron Reservoir #1 has silted in and no longer provides water (Hills, 2010). Grindstone Reservoir and the City of Cameron Reservoirs #2 and #3 are reliable even during dry periods (Hills, 2009). According to RESOP analysis, the lakes are at risk of not meeting current demands during the drought of record without additional sources (MDNR, 2010). Cameron Reservoir #3 and Grindstone Reservoir provide a firm capacity of 0.4 and 1.0 MGD, respectively. The reservoirs provide 1.4 MGD to Clinton and Caldwell Counties for drinking water treatment (MDNR, 2007).

The City of Plattsburg is allocated 10 MGD from Smithville Lake (Gehrt, 2010). This source is fairly reliable, but there has historically been some problems meeting treatment standards (Hills, 2009). Smithville Lake also provides 30 MGD and 7.1 MGD of raw water to the City of Kansas City, Missouri and the City of Smithville, respectively, both outside the study area (Lemley, 2010).

Current Groundwater Suppliers There are no municipal wells in operation or planned for in Clinton County.



5.5.6 Daviess County Water Potential based on Geologic Formations Underlying geologic formation in Daviess County consists of alluvium and glacial deposits. The largest alluvium aquifer is associated with the Grand River Valley, stretching from the northwest corner to the southeast corner of the county. A majority of wells that produced groundwater at the time of a 1957 study on the water potential of Daviess County were in this alluvium strip. The study estimated that 25,000 acres of the county is capable of supporting large-yield wells (Fuller et al. 1957b).

Samples taken from bedrock and glacial wells during the 1957 study consistently yielded water of poor quality. Samples were high in nitrates, chloride, iron, manganese, and TDS (Fuller et al. 1957b).

Current Surface Water Suppliers Daviess County has two surface water sources. The privately owned Lake Viking provides a firm yield of 2.46 MGD (MDNR, 2010). Lake Viking serves the population in the immediate Lake Viking area and is reliable even during dry periods (Hills, 2009). RESOP analysis confirmed that the Lake can meet current demands during a modeled drought of record (MDNR, 2010). Lake Viking is used primarily for recreational purposes and may not be marketed for additional water supply (McIntosh, 2010a).

The small lake in the City of Jamesport called the Jamesport Community Lake is no longer in service. This lake did not meet its designated source capacity during periods of drought (Hills, 2009). RESOP analysis found that water levels in the lake would be extremely low during the drought of record (MDNR, 2010). The City of Jamesport now purchases water from Livingston County PWSD #4 (Hills, 2010).

Current Groundwater Suppliers Five groundwater treatment facilities are located in Daviess County; although two are no longer in operation and two are operated by other counties.

Facilities in the City of Gallatin and the City of Pattonsburg serve Daviess County. Both facilities operate wells drilled into alluvium deposits and the City of Pattonsburg also uses water derived from glacial deposits. Water is generally hard and high in iron. Both facilities use acidification to treat groundwater. Four municipal wells have been closed in these facilities due to low groundwater yields. The maximum treatment capacity of the plant in the City of Gallatin is currently exceeded on a daily basis. The City is in the design phase of building a new treatment plant to meet demands (Johnson, 2010).

Harrison County PWSD #2 and Livingston County PWSD #4 are located in Daviess County, but are operated by their perspective counties. Please refer to Section 5.5.9 for details on the Harrison County facility. Livingston County is not included in this study. Facilities in the City of Coffey and the City of Jameson are no longer in operation and purchase water for treatment.



5.5.7 DeKalb County Water Potential based on Geologic Formations Several wells drilled for the 1957 study in DeKalb County produced water. These wells were all located in the large store of glacial deposits that lies under much of the county. A strip of deep glacial deposits stretches from the northeast to southwest corner of the county. According to the study, approximately 9,000 acres of the county are located in an area suitable for large yield wells (Fuller et al. 1957a).

Samples taken from water, oil, and glacial wells during the 1957 study consistently yielded water high in iron, sulfate, and TDS. Several samples from the water and oil wells produced elevated levels of chloride (Fuller et al. 1957a).

Current Surface Water Suppliers The Willowbrook Lake system serves as a surface water supply for the City of Maysville. South, West, and Willowbrook Lakes have a cumulative firm capacity of 0.45 MGD (MDNR, 2010). The Lake system is owned by the City of Mayville. The storage capacity will continue to decrease over time (Hills, 2009). However, RESOP analysis has determined that Willowbrook Lake is independently capable of meeting current demands during the drought of record (MDNR, 2010).

Current Groundwater Suppliers One city in DeKalb County has a groundwater treatment facility (Hills, 2007). The City of Osborn produces water from glacial wells that have high levels of nitrates. Two wells have been taken out of operation due to the nitrate level. Nitrates in the groundwater from operational wells have steadily increased since construction of the wells, but do not currently exceed the MCL. DeKalb County PWSD #1 and the City of Cameron (from Clinton County PWSD #3) are currently interconnected with the City of Osborn for emergency use (Williams, 2010).

5.5.8 Gentry County Water Potential based on Geologic Formations According to a 1956 study on the water possibilities from the glacial drift of Gentry County, approximately 20,000 acres of the county are suitable for high-yield, municipal wells (Fuller et al. 1956c). This is due in part to the alluvium formation and glacial deposits that occupy much of the county. A strip of thick glacial deposits runs through the center of the county from east to west.

Samples taken from glacial wells during the 1956 study revealed groundwater high in sulfates, iron, and TDS. Several samples also had high manganese content (Fuller et al. 1956c).

Current Surface Water Suppliers This county has several small surface water sources. King City has four small reservoirs that provide a firm capacity of 0.133 MGD (MDNR, 2010). The South Lake was built during the drought of the 1980’s and is located south of the three smaller North Lakes that make up the original water supply. The reservoirs can meet current demands during the drought of record according to RESOP analysis (MDNR, 2010).



There are no current treatment problems with this source, but it will not be able to produce beyond its current firm capacity (Hills, 2009).

The Middle Fork Water Company obtains supply from a lake located on Linn Creek, a tributary to Middle Fork Grand River near the City of Stanberry. The lake is reliable during drought and can sustain a firm capacity of 0.381 MGD (MDNR, 2010). According to RESOP analysis, the lake can meet current demands during the drought of record (MDNR, 2010). However, treatment problems have occurred in the past during times of drought due to the low availability of treatable water (Hills, 2009).

Current Groundwater Suppliers Gentry County contains one operational municipal groundwater treatment facility in the City of Albany. Six wells drilled in both alluvium and glacial deposits produce hard water that requires routine acidification and treatment for iron. One of the six wells has elevated ammonia levels (Hills, 2007).

5.5.9 Harrison County Water Potential based on Geologic Formations Harrison County contains only sparse alluvium deposits and so groundwater is primarily obtained from glacial deposits or bedrock (Fuller et al. 1956a). Bedrock water is highly mineralized and requires extensive treatment. Results from a 1956 study on Harrison County indicate that approximately 17,000 acres of Harrison County are suitable for large yield wells. Operational non-municipal, large yield wells exist in the western part of Harrison County in the glacial aquifer. However at the time of the study, MDNR recommended that no additional wells be located in the aquifer until water levels are stable (Fuller et al. 1956a).

Samples taken from bedrock and glacial wells during the 1956 study consistently yielded water high in sulfate and TDS. Several samples from bedrock wells produced elevated levels of chloride, while all glacial drift samples had high iron concentrations (Fuller et al. 1956a).

Current Surface Water Suppliers The City of Bethany and Harrison County Reservoir System includes the Harrison County Lake C-1 (West Big Fork Lake) and the City of Bethany North and South Lakes (MDNR, 2010). Harrison County Lake C-1 was planned for flood prevention and water supply through the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) small watershed program (PL-566) and began providing water to the City of Bethany and Harrison County PWSD #2 in 1999. The City of Bethany Lakes are the primary source of water for the City of Bethany. Water is transferred from both the Harrison County Lake C-1 and the City of Bethany New Reservoir to the City of Bethany Old Reservoir. The treatment plant receives water from the Old Reservoir (MDNR, 2010). This source is reliable and provides additional water to Harrison Co. PWSD #2 (Hills, 2009). According to RESOP analysis, Harrison County Lake C-1 meets current demands during the drought of record and provides a firm capacity of 0.59 MGD. With use of the recreation allocation of the Harrison County Lake, the firm capacity would



increase to 1.32 MGD. New and Old Bethany Lakes produce a firm capacity of 0.175 and 0.051, respectively (MDNR, 2010).

Eagleville Lake and Rockhouse Lake are two Harrison County sources that are in the process of deactivation. Eagleville Lake currently serves Harrison Co. PWSD #1. The lake was constructed from the East Fork Big Creek PL-566 watershed project. The lake was constructed to be very shallow (Edwards et al. 2005) and water is drawn from the sediment pool (MDNR, 2010). This source is nearly silted in and is very unreliable during drought and according to RESOP analysis, Eagleville Lake does not meet current demands during the drought of record (MDNR, 2010). Water quality and treatment problems at this facility have caused MDNR to ask Harrison County PWSD #1 to take the lake out of production (Hills, 2009). Eagleville Lake is currently supplemented by Harrison Co. PWSD #2 (Hills, 2010).

Rockhouse Lake is located near the City of Ridgeway and was built as part of the NRCS Panther Creek (PL-566) watershed project (MDNR, 2010). According to RESOP analysis, the lake is capable of meeting current demands during the drought of record (MDNR, 2010). However, the City of Ridgeway is in the process of purchasing water from Harrison County PWSD #2 (McIntosh, 2010c).

Current Groundwater Suppliers Harrison County PWSD #2 is served by one groundwater treatment facility that is located in the adjacent Daviess County and drilled into alluvium, glacial, and bedrock deposits. The Harrison County PWSD #2 produces water high in iron and manganese. The facility requires routine acidification. Water levels have steadily decreased since construction of the wells (Hills, 2007). Water supply to Harrison County PWSD #2 is supplemented by the City of Bethany.

Two additional wells are currently under construction in the northwest part of Daviess County just north of the City of Coffey. These wells will provide an additional 750 gpm. These two wells are part of a phased effort to increase the source capacity of Harrison County PWSD#2. Two additional wells are proposed for the next phase of the project scheduled for completion by 2012. These wells should provide an additional 250 gpm and will more fully utilize water treatment plant capacity (Shafer et al. 2010).

5.5.10 Holt County Water Potential based on Geologic Formations Holt County contains ample alluvium deposits within the Missouri River and Nodaway River floodplain. The Missouri River floodplain alone encompasses nearly one-fourth of the area in the county and contains 133 feet maximum depth of alluvium. During the 1960 study on groundwater potential in Holt County, six existing groundwater wells in the Missouri River alluvium produced yields from 70 to 1200 gpm. One well in the Nodaway floodplain was 45 feet deep and yielded 150 gpm. Smaller rivers and streams have limited stores of alluvium and may produce small quantities of water (Heim et al. 1960a).



The glacial drift valley is not as complex in Holt County as neighboring counties and only produces moderate yields of water. Water possibilities in the southern part of the county are limited due to the thin layer of glacial materials overlying the bedrock. Well sampling conducted during the 1960 study showed that only wells drilled in bedrock produced water and that this water was of marginal quality. Seven of eight wells had TDS levels that exceeded levels suitable for human consumption (Heim et al. 1960a).

Samples taken from glacial and alluvium wells during the 1960 study consistently yielded water of relatively good quality. Samples were high in iron and TDS (Heim et al. 1960a).

Current Surface Water Suppliers Holt County does not have any surface water sources being used for drinking water treatment (MDNR, 2007).

Current Groundwater Suppliers Four cities in Holt County operate municipal groundwater treatment facilities including the City of Craig, the City of Maitland, the City of Mound City, and the City of Oregon. Water produced in Holt County is generally of good quality.

Wells in the Cities of Craig and Mound City are located in the Missouri River alluvium. Despite expansion of the treatment plant in the City of Craig, the City needs to drill more wells, expand the lime softening treatment plant, or purchase water from a different plant to meet capacity needs (Hills, 2007). Wells in the City of Mound City are less than 10 years old (Hills, 2010).

Wells in the Cities of Maitland and Oregon of are drilled in other alluvium deposits. Groundwater from these wells requires aeration, filtration, and chlorination (Hills, 2007). The City of Maitland produces water high in nitrates and two wells have been abandoned due to the high nitrate levels. The well field for the City of Maitland is located in the Nodaway River alluvium (Hills, 2007) and could be a future water supply to the City of Graham in Nodaway County.

5.5.11 Nodaway County Water Potential based on Geologic Formations Nodaway County contains three large stores of alluvium in the floodplains of the One Hundred and Two River, the Nodaway River, and the Platte River. Estimates of well production from these sources can be made based on the thickness of alluvium (Heim et al. 1959).

One Hundred and Two River. Alluvium ranges in thickness from 27 to 115 feet and may yield an estimated 2 to 500 gpm.

Nodaway River. Alluvium ranged from 27 to 31 feet in thickness and production estimates ranged from 0 to 20 gpm.



Platte River Alluvium ranged in thickness from 25 to 45 feet and would produce an estimated 3 to 150 gpm.

Glacial deposits in Nodaway County are variable. The most favorable geologic material for groundwater supply development is located in the deeper parts of this system in the center and southern parts of the county. A major east-west valley of deep water-bearing material is located along the Nodaway-Andrew county line (Heim et al. 1959).

Samples taken from glacial and bedrock wells during the 1959 study yielded water high in sulfate and TDS. Test wells drilled into bedrock produced water with high chloride levels (Heim et al. 1959).

Current Surface Water Suppliers Nodaway County has one surface water source located in the City of Maryville, called the Mozingo Reservoir. The reservoir was planned and constructed as a watershed lake through the NRCS small watershed program (PL-566) in cooperation with the City of Maryville. Without utilization of the recreation pool, Mozingo can provide a firm capacity of 2.9 MGD (MDNR, 2010). If the recreation pool was deauthorized and allocated to water supply, Mozingo could provide a firm capacity of 4.0 MGD (MDNR, 2010). This reservoir is under contract with the City to provide 0.3 MGD to the Nodaway County PWSD #1 (Crane, 2010) and meets demands during times of drought (MDNR, 2010). RESOP analysis confirmed that the reservoir will meet current demands during the drought of record (MDNR, 2010).

Prior to lake construction, the City of Maryville obtained water from the One Hundred and Two River. The lake is configured to obtain water from the river as supplement (MDNR, 2010). Although the source is considered reliable, treatment problems may arise from the short life expectancy of the membrane (Hills, 2009).

Current Groundwater Water Suppliers Eight cities in Nodaway County currently operate treatment facilities for groundwater obtained from alluvium deposits. This includes facilities in the City of Barnard, the City of Burlington Junction, the City of Conception Junction, the City of Clearmont, the City of Graham, the City of Hopkins, the City of Ravenwood and the City of Skidmore.

The City of Burlington Junction is currently building a new treatment plant that will allow the City to supply water to Nodaway County PWSD #1 (Crane, 2010). The City of Graham currently operates one well, but there are several private, high-producing wells in the area. The City plans to take part in a buy/sell hookup with Nodaway County PWSD #1 and the City of Maitland in Holt County. The City of Hopkins operates wells in the One Hundred and Two alluvium. The water is high in iron and manganese. Recent updates to the facility include an aeration and filtration system. The City of Ravenwood is served by two shallow, low-production wells. Water must be treated for high iron and manganese levels (Hills, 2007).




Nodaway County PWSD #1 has an emergency interconnect with the City of Ravenwood, the City of Hopkins, and the City of Parnell (Williams, 2010) and is also considering forming a buy/sell connection with the City of Graham and Andrew County (Crane, 2010). Nodaway County PWSD #1 does not have an independent source of water.

Two groundwater facilities have been taken out of production in the City of Collins Corner and the City of Parnell (MDNR, 2010). The City of Clearmont is currently connecting to Nodaway County PWSD #1 and will abandon its source when the connection is complete (Pfost, 2010). Four other facilities are also considering closure. The City of Barnard, The City of Conception Junction, the City of Skidmore, and the City of Sheridan (Worth County) are considering the abandonment of their wells and may also purchase water from Nodaway County PWSD #1. These cities have experienced low yields and treatment issues. The treatment plant in the City of Barnard does not meet current design standards and require renovation. The City of Skidmore has wells in the Nodaway alluvium, but water levels have experienced extreme fluctuations. The groundwater frequently has high levels of iron and manganese and is chlorinated for disinfection (Hills, 2007).

5.5.12 Worth County Water Potential based on Geologic Formations The results of a 1956 study on the water possibilities from the glacial deposits of Worth County indicate that approximately 9,000 acres of the county are suitable for the construction of large yield wells (Fuller et al. 1956b). Alluvium deposits in Worth County are highly variable.

Wells drilled into glacial deposit sampled during the 1965 study produced water with low levels of chloride, sulfate, and TDS. Samples did however have high iron concentrations (Fuller et al. 1956b).

Current Surface Water Suppliers Worth County does not have any surface water sources being used for drinking water (MDNR, 2009).

Current Groundwater Water Suppliers The City of Sheridan operates a groundwater treatment facility in Worth County. The City has experienced difficulties with ammonia levels. Three wells have been abandoned due to low production and the City is considering the purchase of water from Nodaway County PWSD #1. The current source capacity is exceeded on a daily basis (Hills, 2007).

Worth County PWSD #1 obtains water from the City of Grant City. Grant City purchases water from Middle Fork Water Company. The facility could be permanently supplied by the Southern Iowa Rural Association, but is contractually obligated to Grant City (Hills, 2010).




Section 6 Moving Forward-Issue Statements on Drinking Water Sources in Northwest Missouri Locating a reliable supply of water is important as it ultimately impacts the growth and sustainability of a community. Communities with limited water supply may experience adverse impacts to property taxes and real estate values as community members leave to seek more reliable water sources.

The northwest region of Missouri may effectively meet challenges posed by limited economic and environmental resources by utilizing the most reliable water sources on a regional scale. When assessing if a community would benefit from purchasing water from a regional wholesale supplier the following issues should be evaluated. These issues are summarized below on a regional basis, and by county in the issue statements included in Appendix B. The issue statements are part of the outreach program designed to assist local governments in assessing the benefit of joining the GNWWWC.

What is the availability of additional water sources?

Historically, communities in the study area have not used rivers as drinking water sources due to the unreliability of flow. Groundwater availability is dependent upon proximity to the Missouri River and other thick alluvium and glacial deposits. Communities should look at past well drilling reports and assess the number of test holes and drilling attempts required to find a sustained-yield well. If historical records show that finding high-yield wells was difficult in the past, locating additional groundwater resources now will also be challenging. Well logs may also provide insight to the geologic stratum and availability of water-bearing material. See Section 5.2.

Is the current source of drinking water reliable?

Reliability is based upon the source type and location. Surface water sources in the study area generally yield limited quantities of water during dry periods. Many current surface water sources have reported silting problems which directly relate to the cost to treat water and final water quality. Groundwater sources derived from thick glacial and alluvium deposits, like those associated with the Missouri River, are generally very reliable. See Section 5.3.

What is the quality of current water sources?

Generally, surface water in Missouri is of good quality and constituents are within the regulated limits. However, water quality is impacted by drought when supplies are limited. Quality is also impacted by the silting rate of surface water bodies.


Section 6 Moving Forward-Issue Statements on Drinking Water Sources in Northwest Missouri


Groundwater quality in the study area is dependent on the aquifer type. Water from glacial deposits is of good quality in shallow deposits due to the frequent recharge. Water from alluvium deposits is generally high in mineral content and contains moderate amounts of total suspended solids. The quality of raw water is important as it impacts the economic and environmental costs of treatment, and ultimately the cost to the consumer. See Section 5.4.

What are the costs for the supplier and customer?

Joining the GNWWWC will impact the cost to suppliers and customers. To quantify how the water costs will change, facility managers must be sure that they are comparing the GNWWWC wholesale rate to the current water rate adjusted for depreciation. Many distributors do not account for depreciation when calculating water rates and thus do not currently recover all costs caused by that utility. Although the costs to the supplier may be higher initially, long-term savings from reduced operations will need to be considered. See Section 3.

What is the lifespan of treatment and distribution infrastructure?

A majority of the infrastructure associated with the treatment and distribution of drinking water is aging and will require replacement within the next few years. According to the GNWWWC, many drinking water facilities have already surpassed their useful life and should be replaced or abandoned (GNWWWC, 2009a). A community that has reached this point should assess the costs of replacing infrastructure and how that compares to long-term costs of joining the GNWWWC. Facilities that provide treatment should also consider the savings from no longer providing the infrastructure replacement and ongoing maintenance associated with water treatment.

Section 7 References American Water Works Association. 2000. Manual of Water Service Practices: Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges. 5th Edition. Pgs 4-34.

Brookshire, C.N. 1997. WR-47: Missouri Water Quality Assessment. Vol. III.

Campbell, T.D. Director, Andrew County Public Water Supply District #2, Andrew County, Missouri. 2010. Email dated February 23, 2010.

CDM/Bartlett & West. 2009. Phase II Feasibility Report-Northwest Missouri Regional Water Supply Transmission System Study.

Crane, D. Vice President, Nodaway County Public Supply District #1, Nodaway County, Missouri. 2010. Email February 24, 2010.

Edwards, J. S. Chen, and S. McIntosh. 2005. Missouri Water Supply Study.

Fuller, D.L., J.R. McMillen, and W.B. Russell. 1956a. Water Resources Report (WR)-3: Water Possibilities from the Glacial Drift of Harrison County.

Fuller, D.L., J.R. McMillen, H. Pick, W.B. Russell, and J. Wells. 1956b. WR-5: Water Possibilities from the Glacial Drift of Worth County.

Fuller, D.L., J.R. McMillen, H. Pick, W.B. Russell, and J. Wells. 1956c. WR-7: Water Possibilities from the Glacial Drift of Gentry County.

Fuller, D.L., J.R. McMillen, H. Pick, and W.B. Russell. 1957a. WR-8: Water Possibilities from the Glacial Drift of DeKalb County.

Fuller, D.L., J.R. McMillen, H. Pick, and W.B. Russell. 1957b. WR-9: Water Possibilities from the Glacial Drift of Daviess County.

Fuller, D.L., J.R. McMillen, H. Pick, W.B. Russell, and J. Wells. 1957c. WR-14: Water Possibilities from the Glacial Drift of Buchanan County.

Fuller, D.L., J.R. McMillen, H. Pick, W.B. Russell, and J. Wells. WR-15. 1957d. Water Possibilities from the Glacial Drift of Andrew County.

Gaffney, R. and C. Hayes. 2000. WR-51: Missouri State Water Plan Series-A Summary of Missouri Water Laws. Vol. II.

Gehrt, D.J. City Administrator, Plattsburg, Missouri. 2010. E-mail dated April 12, 2010.



Great Northwest Wholesale Water Commission (GNWWC). 2009a. Press Release: Great Northwest Wholesale Water Commission One Step Closer to Reality. www.nwmorcog.org/water/press/symposim%20IV%20PR.pdf

GNWWC. 2009b. Press Release: New Wholesale Water Commission to Serve Northwest Missouri. www.gnwwc.org

Heim, G.E., J.A. Martin, and W.B. Howe. 1959. WR-16: Preliminary Report on the Groundwater Resources of Nodaway County.

Heim, G.E., J.A. Martin, and W.B. Howe. 1960a. WR-17: Preliminary Report on the Groundwater Resources of Holt County.

Heim, G.E., J.A. Martin, and W.B. Howe. 1960b. WR-18: Preliminary Report on the Groundwater Resources of Atchison County.

Hills, William. 2007. Groundwater System Evaluation for the Water Partnership of Northwest Missouri.

Hills, William. 2009. MDNR, Retired. Status of Surface Water Systems in GNWWWC Area.

Hills, William. 2010. MDNR, Retired. Telephone conversation February 19, 2010.

Johnson, Z. 2010. City Administrator, City of Gallatin, Missouri. Telephone Conversation March 9, 2010.

Lemley, Bob. 2010. Utility Director, City of Smithville, Missouri. Telephone conversation February 24, 2010.

McCarty, L. Public Drinking Water Branch, Missouri Department of Natural Resources. 2010. E-mail dated April 5, 2010.

McIntosh, Steve A. 2010a. MDNR, Water Section Chief. E-mail February 24, 2010.

McIntosh, Steve A. 2010b. MDNR, Water Section Chief. E-mail March 23, 2010

McIntosh, Steve A. 2010c. MDNR, Water Section Chief. Personal communication, April 12, 2010.

MDNR. 2001. Geology and Hydrology of the Preglacial Channel Aquifer in Northern Daviess County, Missouri.

MDNR. 2007. Phase I Report for the Water Partnership of Northwest Missouri.

MDNR, 2008. Census of Missouri Public Water Systems. www.dnr.mo.gov/ENV/wpp/census.htm




MDNR. 2010. Lake RESOP studies conducted as part of Missouri Water Supply Study. Unpublished.

Miller, D.E. and C. R. Hays. 1995. Missouri Drought Response Plan.

Miller, D.E. and J.E. Vandike. 1997. WR-46: Missouri State Water Plan Series-Groundwater Resources of Missouri. Vol. II.

Missouri Safe Drinking Water Law. 2009. Revised Statues of Missouri-Topic 640

Pfost, B. White Cloud Engineering and Construction. 2010. E-mail dated March 1, 2010.

Timmons, T. Public Drinking Water Branch, Missouri Department of Natural Resources. 2010. E-mail datedApril 5, 2010.

Vankdike, J.E. 1995. WR-45: Surface Water Resources of Missouri. Vol. I.

Watts, C. Secretary, Bolckow Fire District, Bolckow, Missouri. 2010. E-mail dated February 23, 2010.

Williams, D. 2010. MDNR, Water Protection Program, Environmental Quality Division. Telephone Conversation February 22, 2010.

Vandike, J. 2010. MDNR, Groundwater Section Chief. E-mail April 5, 2010.




Appendix A

Public Drinking Water Wells Northwestern Missouri

29

229

29

29

29

35

35

35

6

46

59

136

59

59

71

136

13

36

59

159

275

169

136 136

136

7159

59

71

59

169

136

3636

69

69169

69

169

71

69

59

6

6

111 46

116 116

113

111

13111

111

33

48

31

85

6

371

113

116

148 246

120

190

31

33

46

46

46

13

6

146

759

121

118

138

190

111

113

752

116116

111

Oregon Well #1, East

Fairfax

Mound City#2 South

Mound City#1 North

HarrisonCo. PWSD#2 Well #4

BolckowWell #4Bolckow

Well #3

Livingston Co. PWSD#4 Lock Springs #2

Livingston Co.PWSD #4 Lock

Springs #1

PattonsburgWells #5 and #6

RosendaleWell #4

RosendaleWell #3 Rosendale

Well #1

Oregon Well #2,North

Oregon Well #3, South

CraigWells #1 and #2

Coffey Well #2

CoffeyWell #1


BurlingtonJunctionWells #1 and #2

SkidmoreWell #4Skidmore

Wells #2 and #3

Polo Well#2, West

Polo Well#1, East

GallatinWell #3

BraymerWell #2

Braymer Well #1

BraymerWell #3

Caldwell Co.PWSD #1 Wells #1 and #2

KingstonWells #1, #2 and #3

OsbornWells #1 and #2

GallatinWell #2,

SouthGallatinWell #1,

North

FillmoreWells #2 and #3

HarrisonCo. PWSD#2 Well #3

HarrisonCo. PWSD #2 Well #2

Harrison Co. PWSD #2 Well #1BolckowEast

Bolckow West

BarnardWell #2

BarnardWell #1

ConceptionJunction

Wells #1, #2 and #3

RavenwoodWell #2

RavenwoodWell #1

Rock PortWells #1, #2, and #3

Cainsville Well #2

CainsvilleWell #3

Sheridan Wells #1, #4 and #5

GrahamWell #1

MaitlandWell #2

MaitlandWell #3

Squaw CreekNat'l WildlifeRef. Well #1

New YorkR-IV Elem. School

ParnellWell #2

Parnell Well #3

ParnellWell #4

SheridanWell #2

RosendaleWell #2

SkidmoreWells #5 and #6


JamesonWell #2Jameson

Well #1

CainsvilleWell #1, 140'

From Plant

Squaw CreekTruck PlazaWell #1

CollinsCorner

BreckenridgeOnly fillsreservoir

BurlingtonJunction Well in Plant

SheridanWell #3

ElmoProposed

Well #2Elmo

Wells #1, #2 and #3

RavenwoodWell #3

ClearmontWells #1, #2 and #3

L e w i s A n d C l a r kL a k e

G r e y sL a k e

B l u f fP o o l

C o n t r a r y , L a k e

K i n gL a k e

O l dM u dL a k e

M a l l a r dM a r s h

P o n yE x p r e s s L a k e

L a k eV i k i n g

W i l l o w b r o o kL a k e

( M a y s v i l l e )

H a r r i s o n C o u n t yL a k e ( W e s t F o r k -

B i g C r e e k )

S m i t h v i l l eR e s e r v o i r

G r i n d s t o n eR e s e r v o i r

M o z i n g oL a k e

B i gL a k e

WorthWorth

WinstonWinston

WestboroWestboro

WatsonWatson

UnionUnionStarStar

TurneyTurney

TrimbleTrimble

StewartsvilleStewartsville

SkidmoreSkidmore

SheridanSheridan

RushvilleRushville

RosendaleRosendale

RidgewayRidgeway

ReaRea

RavenwoodRavenwood

QuitmanQuitman

PoloPolo

PickeringPickering

ParnellParnell

OsbornOsborn

OregonOregon

NewNewHamptonHampton

MountMountMoriahMoriah

MaitlandMaitland

McFallMcFall

Lock SpringsLock Springs

LewisLewisand Clarkand Clark

VillageVillage

KingstonKingston

KingKingCityCity

KidderKidder

JamesportJamesport

JamesonJameson

IrenaIrena

HopkinsHopkins

HoltHolt

GuilfordGuilford

GrantGrantCityCity

GrahamGraham

GilmanGilmanCityCity

GentryGentry

FortescueFortescue

ForestForestCityCity

FillmoreFillmore

EastonEaston

EaglevilleEagleville

DenverDenver

De KalbDe Kalb

DearbornDearborn

DarlingtonDarlington

CraigCraig

CowgillCowgill

CosbyCosby

CorningCorning

CoffeyCoffey

ClydeClyde

ClarksdaleClarksdale

CainsvilleCainsville

BurlingtonBurlingtonJunctionJunction

BreckenridgeBreckenridge

BolckowBolckow

BlythedaleBlythedale

BigBigLakeLake

BigelowBigelow

BarnardBarnard

ArkoeArkoe

AmityAmity

AmazoniaAmazonia

AltamontAltamont

AllendaleAllendale

AgencyAgency

TarkioTarkio

StanberryStanberry

SavannahSavannah

PlattsburgPlattsburg

MoundMoundCityCity

MaysvilleMaysville

LathropLathrop

HamiltonHamilton

GowerGower

GallatinGallatin

CountryCountryClubClub

CameronCameron

BraymerBraymer

BethanyBethany

St.St.JosephJoseph

Albany

Rock Port

C l i n t o nC l i n t o nC o .C o .

C a l d w e l l C o .C a l d w e l l C o .B u c h a n a nB u c h a n a n

C o .C o .

D e K a l b C o .D e K a l b C o .

D a v i e s sD a v i e s sC o .C o .

H o l t C o .H o l t C o .

G e n t r yG e n t r yC o .C o .

H a r r i s o nH a r r i s o nC o .C o .

W o r t h C o .W o r t h C o .

N o d a w a yN o d a w a yC o .C o .

A t c h i s o nA t c h i s o nC o .C o .

A n d r e w C o .A n d r e w C o .

Public Drinking Water WellsType and Status of Well

Community Well, AbandonedCommunity Well, ActiveNon-Community Well, ActiveCommunity Well, InactiveNon-Community Well, InactiveNon-Public Well, InactiveCommunity Well, EmergencyCommunity Well, Proposed

Glacial DepositsDeposit Thickness

10 - 100 ft>100 ft

Aluvium

HydrologyUrban AreasMajor Roads

Map ProjectionUniversal Transverse Mercator, Zone 15

Although all data in this data set have been compiled by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, no warranty, expressed or implied, is made by the department as to the accuracy of the data and related materials.

Digital compilation and cartography by David Erickson Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Water Resources Center

October 2009

1:210,000

Public Drinking Water Wells

Northwestern Missouri1 in = 12 miles

Saint Joseph Area

Tarkio Area

Hopkins Area

Albany Area

Mo American - St. Joseph Well #7







Mo American - St. Joseph Horizontal Collector

AmazoniaAmazonia

Country ClubCountry Club

St. JosephSt. Joseph

Saint Joseph Area

Albany Well #5

Albany Well #4

Albany Well #3

Albany Well #1

Albany Well #2

Albany Well #6

DarlingtonDarlington

AlbanyAlbany

Albany Area

Hopkins

Hopkins SouthHopkins Well #2, WestHopkins Well #3, West

State Line Cafe Well #1Hopkins Well #1, West

Hopkins Well #2, NorthHopkins Well #1, North

Hopkins Area

Tarkio

Fairfax

Fairfax Well #5

Fairfax Well #3

Fairfax Well # 1

Tarkio Water Co. Well #9

Tarkio Water Co. Well #5Tarkio Water Co. Well #10

Tarkio Water Co. Well #8

Tarkio Water Co. Well #7Tarkio Water Co. Well #6

Tarkio Area

NW Water Districts

Nodaway Co. PWSD #1Nodaway Co. PWSD #1 Harrison Co. PWSD #2Harrison Co. PWSD #2

Holt Co. PWSD #1Holt Co. PWSD #1

DeKalb CoDeKalb CoPWSD #1PWSD #1

Daviess Co.Daviess Co.PWSD #2PWSD #2

Worth Co.Worth Co.PWSD #1PWSD #1

Clinton Co.Clinton Co.PWSD #3PWSD #3

Clinton Co. PWSD #4Clinton Co. PWSD #4

Daviess CoDaviess CoPWSD #1PWSD #1

Buchanan Co.Buchanan Co.PWSD #1PWSD #1

Andrew Co.Andrew Co.PWSD #2PWSD #2

Gentry CoGentry CoPWSD #2PWSD #2



Gentry Co.Gentry Co.PWSD #1PWSD #1

Atchison Co.Atchison Co.PWSD #1PWSD #1

Ray Co.Ray Co.PWSD #3PWSD #3

Andrew CoAndrew CoPWSD #4PWSD #4

Livingston Co.Livingston Co.PWSD #4PWSD #4

Clinton Co.Clinton Co.PWSD #2PWSD #2

Caldwell Co.Caldwell Co.PWSD #2PWSD #2

Platte Co. PWSD #9Platte Co. PWSD #9

Caldwell Co. PWSD #1Caldwell Co. PWSD #1

Harrison Co.Harrison Co.PWSD #1PWSD #1

Daviess Co.Daviess Co.PWSD #3PWSD #3

Clay Co. PWSD #3Clay Co. PWSD #3

Platte Co. PWSD #8Platte Co. PWSD #8

Clinton Co. PWSD #1Clinton Co. PWSD #1

Ray Co. PWSD #1Ray Co. PWSD #1

Mercer Co.PWSD #1

Nodaway Co.Nodaway Co.

Harrison Co.Harrison Co.

Holt Co.Holt Co.

Daviess Co.Daviess Co.

Atchison Co.Atchison Co.

DeKalb Co.DeKalb Co.

Caldwell Co.Caldwell Co.

Worth Co.Worth Co.

Gentry Co.Gentry Co.

Clinton Co.Clinton Co.

Andrew Co.Andrew Co.

Buchanan Co.Buchanan Co.

Appendix B

Issue Statements

DRINKING WATER SOURCE AVAILABILITY The 12‐county area of northwest Missouri is served by 19 active surface water sources and 81 active groundwater wells. Since

2007, four surface water sources have closed and more than 43 wells have been taken out of production. Historically, communities in northwest Missouri have not used rivers as drinking water sources due to the unreliability of flow.

Groundwater availability is dependent upon proximity to the Missouri River and other thick alluvium and glacial deposits.

DRINKING WATER SOURCE RELIABILITY According to the Missouri Drought Response Plan, a majority of the region is vulnerable to severe drought. This indicates that

surface water sources are usually inadequate during drought and that groundwater is sufficient only for domestic needs.

Surface water sources in the northwest region of Missouri generally yield limited quantities of water during dry periods. Many current surface water sources have reported silting problems which directly relate to the cost to treat water and final water quality.

Groundwater sources derived from thick glacial and alluvium deposits, like those associated with the Missouri River, are generally very reliable.

DRINKING WATER SOURCE QUALITY Generally, surface water in Missouri is of good quality and constituents are within the regulated limits. However, water quality

is impacted by drought when supplies are limited. Quality is also impacted by the silting rate of surface water bodies.

Groundwater quality is dependent on the aquifer type. Water from glacial deposits is of good quality in shallow deposits due to the frequent recharge. Water from alluvium deposits is generally high in mineral content and contains moderate amounts of total suspended solids. All groundwater wells in the region require treatment prior to distribution for drinking water.

Water Supply Study Limitations for Drinking Water Supply in Northwest Missouri

Water Supply Study Should We Join the Great Northwest Wholesale Water Commission?

FORMATION & PURPOSE OF GNWWWC Initiated in 2003 with the formation of the Water Partnership for Northwest Missouri that included representatives from the

twelve county area.

The Water Partnership found that challenges to drinking water supply were due to lack of a reliable source of raw water and deteriorating water treatment infrastructure and developed Sketch Number 7, a plan for a regional water transmission system.

In late 2008, the Water Partnership voted to form the Great Northwest Wholesale Water Commission under Chapter 393 of the Missouri Revised State Statues.

The GNWWWC is a public utility with authority to construct and own infrastructure, issue debt on behalf of its members, receive grant proceeds and other public assistance, and purchase and sell water from retail water systems.

The GNWWWC met for the first time on July 16, 2009 in the City of Savannah, Missouri with eight water providers. As of February 2010, 22 cities and water districts have joined the GNWWWC.

COST OF WATER A modified cash‐needs

approach can be used to provide a comparison between the costs associated with treating and supplying finished water, and the cost of purchasing wholesale water from the GNWWWC.

Joining the GNWWWC will impact the cost to water systems. To quantify how the water costs will change, facility managers must be sure that they are comparing the GNWWWC wholesale rate to the current cost of producing water adjusted for depreciation.

CURRENT & FUTURE REGULATORY ISSUES Stage 1 and Stage 2 Disinfectants/Disinfection By‐Product Rules. Sets maximum residual disinfectant levels for chlorine,

chloramine and chlorine dioxide and tightens the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for disinfection by‐products. Regulated throughout entire system.

Long‐Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. Requires monitoring for Cryptosporidium (or for small systems, E. coli) to determine treatment requirements according to a bin category system.

Groundwater Rule. Requires specific inspections to ensure that treatment technology achieves inactivation or removal of viruses.

Lead and Copper Rule Short‐Term Revisions. Provides modifications to general monitoring procedures.

Revised Total Coliform Rule. Requires special assessments of water systems, investigation and correction of sanitary defects, and increased monitoring for high‐risk small systems with unacceptable compliance history or significant non‐compliance

MOVING FORWARD‐ASSESSMENT FOR JOINING GNWWWC Is your current water source reliable? What is the availability of additional resources to encourage community growth and sustainability?

What is the quality of current water sources?

What are the current costs to the supplier and the customer? How do we compare to purchase of water from a regional wholesale supply?

What are the current costs to the supplier and the customer?

How do we compare to purchase of water from a regional wholesale supply?

AVAILABILITY

Limited glacial deposits in far north and south part of the County which may yield low to moderate quantities of groundwater. The southwest corner contains Missouri River alluvium which may support large‐yield wells.

RELIABILITY

According to the Missouri Drought Response Plan, a majority of the County is located in a region of severe drought vulnerability. This indicates that surface water sources are usually inadequate during drought and that groundwater is sufficient only for domestic needs. Areas along the Missouri River are not considered vulnerable to drought.

Andrew County does not currently contain any surface water drinking sources.

The City of Bolckow is located in alluvium deposits and has recently closed several wells to due low groundwater yield.

The City of Savannah operates three wells in the Missouri River alluvium, the first of which was built over 50 years ago and is still a viable source of water. The treatment facility was recently constructed and is currently operating at half capacity.

The City of Rosendale and the City of Fillmore closed their groundwater treatment facilities due to low water yields from the wells.

QUALITY

Groundwater is high in sulfates, chloride, and total dissolved solids. Test wells drilled into glacial deposits produced water high in iron. Some samples also contained excessive nitrates, presumably from agricultural contamination.

Current groundwater facilities produce water that is hard and high in iron and manganese concentrations.

Water Supply Summary Andrew County, MO

Municipal Suppliers and Customers

WATER STATISTICS

Location‐ Lake Name

Source Name and ID Supply Type Firm Yield Capacity1 (MGD) Treatment

Capacity2 (MGD) Avg Daily Use2 (MGD)

City of Bolckow Bolckow MO1010084 Groundwater‐Alluvium NR 0.144 0.05

City of Savannah Savannah MO1010724 Groundwater‐Missouri River Alluvium NR 1.5 0.55

Water Supply Summary Andrew County, MO

1 MDNR RESOP Studies (MDNR, 2010) 2 Phase I Report (MDNR, 2007) NR Not Reported


WATER STATISTICS


Source Name and ID Supply Type Firm Yield Capacity1

(MGD) Treatment Capacity2

(MGD) Avg Daily Use2,3

(MGD)

City of Fairfax Fairfax MO1010265 Groundwater‐Alluvium NR 0.288 0.093

City of Rock Port Rock Port MO1010696 Groundwater‐Missouri River Alluvium NR 0.75 0.280

City of Tarkio Tarkio MO1010786 Groundwater‐Alluvium NR 0.75 0.161

Water Supply Summary Atchison County, MO

AVAILABILITY

Contains ample alluvial deposits within the Missouri River and Tarkio River floodplain. Approximately one‐third of the County contains quaternary alluvium with the potential for high groundwater yields.

RELIABILITY


The City of Fairfax and the City of Tarkio are located near thick alluvium deposits, the City of Rock Port uses wells drilled into the Missouri River alluvium.

QUALITY

Groundwater from this area contained high levels of iron and manganese, but is generally of good quality.

Current groundwater facilities have reported water with high sulfates and chlorides.


1 MDNR RESOP Studies (MDNR, 2010) 2 Phase I Report (MDNR, 2007) 3 Confirmed by Phase II Report (CDM/Bartlett & West, 2009) NR Not Reported

AVAILABILITY

Contains a large store of shallow glacial deposits and a thin strip of deep glacial deposits with low‐moderate potential yields of water. The area most favorable for large‐yield well development lies in the quaternary alluvium along the Missouri River on the eastern border of the country.

RELIABILITY


The Missouri‐American groundwater treatment facility located in the City of St. Joseph. The facility is served by nine gravel‐walled wells and one collector located in Andrew County. The wells are very reliable and produce water from the Missouri River alluvium.

QUALITY

Groundwater is high in chloride and total dissolved solids. Test wells drilled into glacial deposits produced water of low mineral content, but high TDS.

Current groundwater facilities have reported hard water that has elevated levels of iron.

WATER STATISTICS



(MGD)

Treatment Capacity2 (MGD)

Avg Daily Use2

(MGD)

Missouri‐American Water Company MO AM Water MO1010714 Groundwater‐Missouri River Alluvium NR 30.0 15.0

Water Supply Summary Buchanan County, MO



AVAILABILITY

Contains an alluvium aquifer that runs through the center of the County with the potential for moderate‐yield wells. A small pocket of shallow glacial drift lies in the lower southeast corner of the County that may produce low yields of water with limited recharge potential.

RELIABILITY

According to the Missouri Drought Response Plan, the County is located in a region of severe drought vulnerability. This indicates that surface water sources are usually inadequate during drought and that groundwater is sufficient only for domestic needs.

This county is served by three surface water sources in the City of Hamilton, City of Breckenridge, and by Otter Creek.

Hamilton Lake experiences decreased water quality and quantity during periods of extended drought, which makes treatment more difficult. Additional needs could be met by diverting water from Marrowbone Creek.

Breckenridge Lake is fed by water from a well drilled into glacial deposits. The facility produces water at negligible rates and is not considered reliable and is at risk of not meeting current demands during drought.

Otter Creek is the most recently commissioned surface water source in the NW Missouri region. Although the project has

local and federal support, it requires additional fiscal assistance. When Complete, Otter Creek will provide 1.24 MGD for

drinking water purposes.

Four cities in Caldwell County operate groundwater treatment facilities in alluvium deposits.

The City of Polo no longer produces groundwater. Although the capacity of the alluvium wells is viable, treatment

challenges caused the facility to close. The City of Polo now purchases water.

QUALITY

All groundwater facilities use acidification for periodic maintenance and produce water that is hard and high in manganese.

The quality of water from surface water sources is reduced during periods of drought.

Water Supply Summary Caldwell County, MO


WATER STATISTICS



(MGD)


Avg Daily Use2 (MGD)

City of Braymer Braymer MO1010098 Groundwater‐Alluvium NR 0.201 0.08

City of Breckenridge‐Breckenridge Lake

Breckenridge MO1010099 Surface Water Groundwater‐Glacial Deposits 0.052 0.151 0.048

Caldwell County PWSD #1 Caldwell County PWSD #1 MO1024078

Groundwater‐Alluvium NR 0.068 0.033

City of Hamilton‐Hamilton Lake Hamilton MO1010342 Surface Water 0.19 0.648 0.1853

City of Kingston Kingston MO1010426 Groundwater‐Alluvium NR 0.072 0.0333

Water Supply Summary Caldwell County, MO



AVAILABILITY

Clinton County consists primarily of sparse alluvial deposits. A store of shallow glacial deposits exists in the southwest corner of the County near Smithville Lake and also in the northern part of the county with limited yield and recharge potential.

RELIABILITY


Smithville Lake is reliable and allocates 30 MGD to the City of Kansas City and 10 MGD to the City of Plattsburg.

Two reservoirs in the City of Cameron and the Grindstone reservoir serve as surface water supply to the City of Cameron. The City of Cameron Reservoir #1 has silted in and no longer provides water. Grindstone and the City of Cameron Reservoirs #2 and #3 are reliable even during dry periods. However, according to RESOP analysis, these lakes would not meet current demands during the drought of record from 1951‐1959.

QUALITY

Smithville Lake is fairly reliable, but has historically had problems meeting treatment standards.

WATER STATISTICS



(MGD)


Avg Daily Use2,3 (MGD)

City of Cameron‐Grindstone Reservoir & Cameron Reservoir Cameron MO1010131 Surface Water 1.4 2.88 1.592

City of Plattsburg‐Smithville Lake Plattsburg MO1010648 Surface Water NR 1.453 0.923

Water Supply Summary Clinton County, MO



AVAILABILITY

Contains some alluvium and glacial deposits, with low‐moderate potential of water production and well recharge. The largest alluvium aquifer is associated with the Grand River Valley that runs from the northwest corner to the southeast corner of the County.

RELIABILITY


Lake Viking is reliable, but is used primarily used for recreational purposes and may not be marketed for additional water supply. Lake Viking serves Davies County PWSD #3 and has a firm capacity of 2.46 MGD.

Jamesport Community Lake is no longer in service because it could not meet its designated source capacity during periods of drought. The City now purchases water.

Harrison County PWSD #2 and Livingston County PWSD #4 are located in Daviess County, but are operated by their perspective counties. Harrison County PWSD #2 is currently undergoing construction to expand capacity.

Four municipal wells have been closed in the City of Gallatin and the City of Pattonsburg due to low groundwater yields. The maximum daily treatment capacity is currently exceeded in the City of Gallatin.

Facilities in the City of Coffey and the City of Jameson are no longer in operation due to low well production.

QUALITY

Groundwater from bedrock and glacial wells is of poor quality. Samples were high in nitrates, chloride, iron, manganese, and total dissolved solids.

Water from current facilities is generally hard and high in iron. Wells in the area require acidification to maintain pumping capacity.

Water Supply Summary Daviess County, MO


WATER STATISTICS


Source Name and ID Supply Type Firm Yield

Capacity1 (MGD)



City of Gallatin Gallatin MO1010299 Groundwater‐Glacial Deposits NR 0.400 0.377

Daviess County PWSD #3‐Lake Viking Daviess County PWSD #3 MO1036130 Surface Water 2.46 0.2 0.058

City of Pattonsburg Pattonsburg MO1010632 Groundwater‐Alluvium and Glacial Deposits

NR 0.432 0.250

Water Supply Summary Daviess County, MO



AVAILABILITY

Contains a large store of glacial deposits that lies under much of the County with low yield and recharge potential. A strip of deep glacial deposits stretches from the northeast to southwest corner of the County with moderate yield and recharge potential.

RELIABILITY


Willowbrook Lake in the City of Maysville has experienced silting problems that have resulted in reduced storage capacity, but can meet current demands during the drought of record from 1951‐1959.

QUALITY

Samples taken from water, oil, and glacial wells consistently yield water high in iron, sulfate, and total dissolved solids. Several samples from the water and oil wells produced elevated levels of chloride.

Wells in the county have historically produced high levels of nitrates from glacial wells, and two wells have been taken out of operation due to the nitrate level.

WATER STATISTICS



(MGD) Treatment

Capacity2 (MGD) Avg Daily Use2

(MGD)

City of Maysville‐Willowbrook Lake Maysville MO1010510 Surface Water 0.45 0.576 0.1153

City of Osborn Osborn MO1010609 Groundwater‐Glacial Deposits NR 0.086 0.030

Water Supply Summary DeKalb County, MO



AVAILABILITY

Contains alluvium and glacial deposits throughout much of the County. A strip of thick glacial deposits with moderate yield and recharge potential runs through the center of the County from east to west.

RELIABILITY


The City of King City has four small reservoirs that can produce a field capacity of 0.133 MGD and can meet current demand during the drought of record.

Middle Fork Reservoir near the City of Stanberry can meet demands during the drought of record, but has experienced treatment problems during drought in the past.

Contains six groundwater wells in the City of Albany drilled in both alluvium and glacial deposits.

QUALITY

Groundwater is high in sulfates, iron, and total dissolved solids. Several samples also had high manganese content.

Current groundwater facilities produce hard water that requires treatment for iron. Periodic problems arise with ammonia levels in groundwater wells.

Water Supply Summary Gentry County, MO


WATER STATISTICS


Source Name and ID Supply Type Firm Yield Capacity1 (MGD)



City of Albany Albany MO101006 Groundwater‐Alluvium and Glacial Deposits NR 1.0 0.4303

City of King City‐King City Reservoir King City MO1010425 Surface Water 0.133 0. 0.1003

City of Stanberry‐Middle Fork Grand River Reservoir

Middle Fork Water County MO1070639

Surface Water 0.381 1.0 0.335

Water Supply Summary Gentry County, MO



AVAILABILITY

Contains sparse alluvium deposits so groundwater is primarily obtained from glacial deposits or bedrock, with low yield and recharge potential.

RELIABILITY

According to the Missouri Drought Response Plan, the County is located in a region of severe drought vulnerability. This indicates that surface water sources are inadequate during drought and that groundwater is sufficient only for domestic needs.

The Harrison County Reservoir System can meet current demands during the time of drought, and could provide additional water with allocation of recreation pools to water supply.

Harrison County is served by one groundwater treatment facility that is located in the adjacent Daviess County. Two additional wells are currently under construction and will provide an additional 750 gpm. These two wells are part of a phased effort to increase the source capacity of Harrison County PWSD#2.

Operational non‐municipal, large yield wells exist in the western part of Harrison County in the glacial aquifer.

QUALITY

Samples taken from bedrock and glacial wells consistently yield water high in sulfate and total dissolved solids. Several samples from bedrock wells produced elevated levels of chloride, while all glacial drift samples had high iron concentrations.

Water that is obtained from glacial deposits or bedrock is generally mineralized and requires extensive treatment. Existing groundwater facilities produce water high in iron and manganese.

Water Supply Summary Harrison County, MO


WATER STATISTICS


Source Name and ID Supply Type Firm Yield Capacity1 (MGD)



City of Bethany‐Harrison County Lake and Bethany Lakes

Bethany MO1010068 Surface Water 0.816 1.0 0.325

Harrison County PWSD #2 Harrison County PWSD #2 MO1024242

Groundwater‐Alluvium, Glacial, and Pennsylvanian Deposits

NR 0.40 0.45

Water Supply Summary Harrison County, MO



AVAILABILITY

Contains ample alluvium deposits within the Missouri River and Nodaway River floodplain with moderate‐high yield and recharge potential. The Missouri River floodplain alone encompasses nearly one‐fourth of the area in the county and contains 133 feet maximum depth of alluvium.

The glacial drift valley produces moderate yields of water. Water possibilities in the southern part of the County are limited due to the thin layer of glacial materials overlying the bedrock.

RELIABILITY


Four cities in Holt County operate municipal groundwater treatment facilities including the City of Craig, the City of Maitland, the City of Mound City, and the City of Oregon.

The well field for the City of Maitland is located in the Nodaway River alluvium.

QUALITY

Samples taken from glacial and alluvium wells yield water of relatively good quality. Samples were high in iron and TDS.

Water derived from wells drilled into alluvium deposits require aeration, filtration, and chlorination.

Some wells in the County have been abandoned due to high nitrate levels.

Water Supply Summary Holt County, MO


WATER STATISTICS



(MGD)



City of Craig Craig MO1010191 Groundwater‐Missouri River Alluvium NR 0.2 0.0743

City of Maitland Maitland MO1010489 Groundwater‐Alluvium NR 0.1 0.025

City of Mound City Mound City MO1010548 Groundwater‐Missouri River Alluvium NR 0.72 0.1703

City of Oregon Oregon MO1010605 Groundwater‐Alluvium NR 0.432 0.1753

Water Supply Summary Holt County, MO



AVAILABILITY

Nodaway County contains three large stores of alluvium in the floodplains of the One Hundred and Two River, the Nodaway River, and the Platte River with moderate‐high yield and recharge potential.

The most favorable geologic material for groundwater supply development is located in the deeper parts of this system in the center and southern parts of the County. A major east‐west valley of deep water‐bearing material is located along the Nodaway‐Andrew county line.

The City of Burlington Junction is currently building a new treatment plant that will allow the City to supply water to Nodaway County PWSD #1.

RELIABILITY


The Mozingo Reservoir in City of Maryville is considered reliable and provides water to Nodaway County PWSD #1. Additional supply could be generated from recreation allocation of Mozingo Reservoir, or supplemented by the One Hundred and Two River.

Eight groundwater well treatment facilities have been closed, four plan to connect with Nodaway County PWSD #1 and abandon individual sources.

Two groundwater facilities have been taken out of production in the City of Collins Corner and the City of Parnell. The City of Clearmont is currently connecting to Nodaway County PWSD #1 and will abandon its source when the connection is

complete. QUALITY

Samples taken from glacial and bedrock wells yields water high in sulfate and total dissolved solids. Test wells drilled into bedrock produced water with high chloride levels.

Several existing facilities have experienced high levels of iron and manganese. There have been some instances of Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether contamination.

Water Supply Summary Nodaway County, MO


WATER STATISTICS


Source Name and ID2 Firm Yield

Capacity1 (MGD)



City of Barnard Barnard MO1010046 NR 0.05 0.022

City of Burlington Junction Burlington Junction MO1010117 NR 0.13 0.045

City of Clearmont Clearmont MO1010173 NR 0.05 0.017

City of Conception Junction Conception Junction MO1010182 NR 0.05 0.015

City of Graham Graham MO1010319 NR 0.064 0.018

City of Hopkins Hopkins MO1010378 NR 0.144 0.041

City of Maryville‐Mozingo Lake Maryville MO1010508 2.9 5.0 2.8

City of Ravenwood Ravenwood MO1010673 NR 0.1 0.035

City of Skidmore Skidmore MO1010744 NR 0.173 0.02

Supply Type

Groundwater‐Alluvium






Surface Water



Water Supply Summary Nodaway County, MO



AVAILABILITY

Alluvium deposits in Worth County are highly variable and may provide moderate‐high yields of water depending on aquifer thickness.

RELIABILITY

According to the Missouri Drought Response Plan, a majority of the County is located in a region of severe drought vulnerability. This indicates that surface water sources are usually inadequate during drought and that groundwater is sufficient only for domestic needs.

Three groundwater wells have been abandoned due to low production.

QUALITY

Glacial deposit wells produce water with low levels of chloride, sulfate, and total dissolved solids. Samples had high iron concentrations.

The City of Sheridan operates a groundwater treatment facility in Worth County drilled from alluvium. The City has experienced difficulties with ammonia levels.

WATER STATISTICS

Location‐Lake Name Source Name and ID Supply Type Firm Yield

Capacity1 (MGD) Treatment

Capacity2 (MGD) Avg Daily Use2,3

(MGD)

City of Sheridan Sheridan MO1010739 Groundwater‐Alluvium NR 0.043 0.024

Water Supply Summary Worth County, MO



Documents

Phase III Report - Missouri Department of Natural Resources · Phase III Report Final Report May 2010 Missouri Department of Natural Resources – Water Resources Center Great Northwest